I've got no dog in this hunt. I only continued to do some research this morning when it became clear that most media sources were flat-out misrepresenting how the overturn of the Stream Protection Rule came about, implying if not outright saying that POTUS was, unilaterally, repealing an environmental protection law that had already been on the books and by which mining companies already had to operate.AndyC wrote:Ok, but.... I'm curious, why is that a "bad thing"?Skiprr wrote:The SPR affects (affected) over 6,000 miles of streams and over 52,000 acres of forested area. It requires companies to restore streams, to replant native trees, to return mined areas to conditions as they were before mining took place, and to maintain a buffer zone that blocks coal mining within 100 feet of any stream.
But it wasn't striking down a standing regulation. Congress struck down a new one that Obama approved which had only been in place for 11 days. Evidently the Department of the Interior’s own reports already showed that coal mining offsite impacts are minimal, and that mines are being operated in accordance with current federal and state regulations. So the SPR was a "global warming" type of thing--"Let's put new regulations in place now because some streams or land might be affected in the future"--a new bureaucratic regulation that addressed no identified problem, but was going to cost jobs and money.
Best I can tell from some quick notes I made, these were some factors Republicans and a number of Dems were railing over and why they wanted the SPR to be shot down....
No. Wait. I'm just gonna quote some stuff. My word-count about coal mining is already expended for the decade
but I'll underline parts for emphasis:- The National Mining Association December 19 press release about the implementation of the SPR can be found here: http://nma.org/2016/12/19/nma-strongly- ... ream-rule/
The Daily Caller, February 16 wrote:The president said in a previous statement the $1.2 billion stream rule “duplicates existing protections in the Clean Water Act and is unnecessary given the other Federal and State regulations already in place.”
“Because of the war on coal waged by the Obama administration, over 240 coal fired plants have closed and 83,000 people have lost their jobs,” West Virginia Rep. David McKinley said in a statement. “Fortunately, we finally have a partner in the White House who understands just how damaging these rules can be.”
Republicans argue it’s another duplicative, unnecessary rule form the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Democrats and environmentalists say it’s needed to tackle global warming and increase revenues from drilling on federal lands.
“The contortions BLM went through to say they had the legal authority is almost embarrassing,” Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop said in a statement on the CRA’s passing.
Americans for Tax Reform, Grover G. Norquist, January 30, 2017 wrote:The OSM’s Stream Protection Rule is an egregious and unlawful example of federal regulatory overreach that infringes on the authority of state regulatory bodies, is wholly unnecessary, and will impact the livelihood of millions of Americans.
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act instructs that States are to be the primary regulators of coal mining. In drafting the Stream Protection Rule, OSM failed to comply with these instructions, instead moving forward without real or meaningful involvement from the public or the relevant state agencies that are tasked with regulating 97 percent of the coal mines in the U.S.
The Department of Interior’s own reports show that essentially all coal mines have no off-site impacts, that lands are being restored successfully, and mines are being operated safely and in accordance with existing state and federal regulations. The Stream Protection Rule is simply a regulation in search of a problem.
It is also the case the OSM rule will have far reaching impacts on the American economy. The rule threatens one-third of the nation’s coal mining work force and would remove half or more of total U.S. coal reserves from future production. The rule would also drive up electricity costs for American consumers and could reduce state and federal tax revenue by over $6 billion annually.
Competitive Enterprise Institute, January 31, 2017 wrote:This rule is supposed to replace a rule promulgated by the George W. Bush administration. At the outset of President Obama’s presidency, the Interior Department simply revoked the Bush rule, but a federal court blocked this action because it bypassed procedural safeguards. As a result, the Obama administration undertook a seven-year rulemaking, and the final stream buffer zone rule was issued during Obama’s lame duck session.
This timing raises an obvious question: If the Bush rule was so inadequate to protect the environment, then why did the administration spend so much time on the replacement rule? Further, the rulemaking itself was characterized by an unacceptable absence of transparency.
After reports regarding job losses connected to the rule made the news, the House Natural Resources Committee was repeatedly rebuffed in its efforts to oversee the rulemaking. The Interior Department even ignored subpoenas issued by the committee. Eight of ten states withdrew from agreements to cooperate on the rule because the Interior Department would not share key information, and the Interior Department subsequently ignored a letter from 19 states requesting that it re-engage with them on the rule.
By themselves, these procedural abuses would be sufficient grounds for lawmakers to prevent the Stream Buffer Zone rule from taking effect. But the rule itself is also bad policy. The rule would have a profound impact on coal miners and threaten one-third of the nation’s coal mining workforce.
The entire point of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act is to sanction surface mining. But Obama’s rule would effectively preclude mining in much of the steep terrain of Appalachia—hitting this region’s economy the hardest. This is contrary to the law’s fundamental purpose.
White House Press Release, February 16 wrote:Since 2009, the coal industry has declined, leaving workers and communities without a lifeline. Over 36,000 jobs have been lost without any relief in sight. From 2009 to 2015, American coal production has declined by over 177,000,000 tons, and over 600 coal mines have closed. H.J.Res. 38 will give coal country relief from these harmful regulations created under the Obama Administration.
U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith wrote:According to the National Mining Association, as many as 78,000 coal mining jobs would have been lost if SPR was implemented, on top of thousands of jobs already lost during the Obama Administration. If jobs in fields related to coal mining are included, up to 281,000 people could have been put out of work, with an estimated 190,000 lost jobs in the Appalachian region alone.
