DOCSLIB.ORG

THE COAL MINE NEXT DOOR RIGHTS How the US Government’S Deregulation of Mountaintop Removal WATCH Threatens Public Health

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE COAL MINE NEXT DOOR RIGHTS How the US Government’S Deregulation of Mountaintop Removal WATCH Threatens Public Health HUMAN THE COAL MINE NEXT DOOR RIGHTS How the US Government’s Deregulation of Mountaintop Removal WATCH Threatens Public Health The Coal Mine Next Door How the US Government’s Deregulation of Mountaintop Removal Threatens Public Health Copyright © 2018 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 978-1-6231-36864 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice. Human Rights Watch is an independent, international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all. Human Rights Watch is an international organization with staff in more than 40 countries, and offices in Amsterdam, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Goma, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, Nairobi, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Tunis, Washington DC, and Zurich. For more information, please visit our website: http://www.hrw.org DECEMBER 2018 ISBN: 978-1-6231-36864 The Coal Mine Next Door How the US Government’s Deregulation of Mountaintop Removal Threatens Public Health Maps of Mountaintop Removal ............................................................................................ i Glossary of Terms .............................................................................................................. ii Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1 The Health Threat of Mountaintop Removal ...............................................................................4 The Coal Industry’s Response .................................................................................................. 8 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 12 To the US Department of the Interior ....................................................................................... 12 To the US Environmental Protection Agency ............................................................................ 12 To the US Congress ................................................................................................................. 12 To state environmental agencies where mountaintop removal occurs ...................................... 13 To coal companies and the National Mining Association ......................................................... 13 Methodology .....................................................................................................................14 I. Background ................................................................................................................... 16 Coal Unregulated .................................................................................................................... 18 Denial of Black Lung Disease ............................................................................................ 19 Mining Accidents ............................................................................................................. 21 Coal Regulated ....................................................................................................................... 22 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969............................................................... 22 Subsequent Legislation .................................................................................................... 23 Mountaintop Removal ........................................................................................................... 28 Regulatory Context .......................................................................................................... 29 Economic Context ............................................................................................................ 30 II. The Health Threat of Mountaintop Removal .................................................................. 33 “A Lot Sicker, a Lot More Often” .............................................................................................. 36 Air Pollution ........................................................................................................................... 42 “Awful Dusty”: Residential impacts .................................................................................. 42 Impact on Mountaintop Miners ........................................................................................ 46 Water Contamination ............................................................................................................. 49 Ecological Impact on Streams ........................................................................................... 51 Health Risks to Nearby Communities ................................................................................ 54 III. The Coal Industry’s Response ...................................................................................... 63 Influencing Science ............................................................................................................... 64 Halted National Academy of Science study ...................................................................... 64 Putting Pressure ............................................................................................................... 67 Funding Research ............................................................................................................ 69 Influencing government .......................................................................................................... 72 Regulatory Battles ............................................................................................................ 72 Campaign Donations, Lobbying and the Revolving Door .................................................... 79 IV. International Human Rights Law .................................................................................. 84 Rights to Health and a Healthy Environment ........................................................................... 84 Right to Water ........................................................................................................................ 86 Corporate Human Rights Responsibilities ............................................................................... 87 Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ 88 Appendix: Responses to Human Rights Watch Letters ...................................................... 89 Maps of Mountaintop Removal Land impacted by mountaintop removal as of 2015 based on satellite imagery. Map prepared by SkyTruth, an independent organization that promotes transparency on environmental issues. © 2018 SkyTruth Glossary of Terms Appalachia: A region in the eastern United States that follows the spine of the Appalachian Mountains and encompasses parts of 13 states from southern New York to northern Mississippi. For over a century, coal has dominated the economy of central Appalachia, an area made up of southern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, the western edge of Virginia and northeastern tip of Tennessee. Mountaintop removal: A form of surface coal mining prevalent in central Appalachia that involves removing up to 400 vertical feet of a mountaintop to recover all or most of the coal seam below. Overburden: The part of the mountain that is blasted and removed to reach a coal seam. Valley fill: Overburden is typically dumped into the nearby valley, creating a valley fill as big as 1,000 feet wide and one mile long. The valley fill often looks like an inverted stepped triangle and has a line of rocks running along its center, which replaces the stream buried beneath it. Summary For 20 years, coal companies blasted off the mountaintops around the house of Rick Bradford, a retired teacher in Edwight, West Virginia, to excavate thin coal seams buried hundreds of feet deep. After detonating millions of pounds of explosives, trucks the size of his house dumped the loosened waste rock, called overburden, into the nearby valleys, burying the streams below. “It’s like a bomb hit,” Bradford said of the mountains he hiked since a child and where many of his loved ones are buried. Mountaintop removal, a form of surface mining, has already leveled or severely impacted 500 mountaintops in West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee, according to Appalachian Voices, an activist group opposed to mountaintop removal. An Environmental Protection Agency assessment calculated that mountaintop removal has buried more miles of stream than the entire length of the Mississippi River. Coal companies continue to operate these mines without stringent regulation, even as public health researchers have amassed significant evidence over the last decade showing that people like Bradford who live near mountaintop mines disproportionately suffer and even die from a litany of health problems, including cardiovascular disease and cancer. A study conducted by West Virginia University researchers revealed that tiny dust particles released to the air in Edwight promoted cancer growth when injected into human lung cells, while another by the United States Geological Survey, a science agency within the Interior Department, found that nearby streams
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Restoring Streams in an Urbanizing World
    Freshwater Biology (2007) 52, 738–751 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01718.x Restoring streams in an urbanizing world EMILY S. BERNHARDT* AND MARGARET A. PALMER† *Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC, U.S.A. †Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Solomons, MD, U.S.A. SUMMARY 1. The world’s population is increasingly urban, and streams and rivers, as the low lying points of the landscape, are especially sensitive to and profoundly impacted by the changes associated with urbanization and suburbanization of catchments. 2. River restoration is an increasingly popular management strategy for improving the physical and ecological conditions of degraded urban streams. In urban catchments, management activities as diverse as stormwater management, bank stabilisation, channel reconfiguration and riparian replanting may be described as river restoration projects. 3. Restoration in urban streams is both more expensive and more difficult than restoration in less densely populated catchments. High property values and finely subdivided land and dense human infrastructure (e.g. roads, sewer lines) limit the spatial extent of urban river restoration options, while stormwaters and the associated sediment and pollutant loads may limit the potential for restoration projects to reverse degradation. 4. To be effective, urban stream restoration efforts must be integrated within broader catchment management strategies. A key scientific and management challenge is to establish criteria for determining when the design options for urban river restoration are so constrained that a return towards reference or pre-urbanization conditions is not realistic or feasible and when river restoration presents a viable and effective strategy for improving the ecological condition of these degraded ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Manitou Stream
    LEAFLET 20 • May 2010 Manitou Stream Photo by Paul Zedler How Best to Manage “UrBan streaM syndroMe” Improving water quality: site with Arboretum staff on 23 April 2010. Accompanying her was another noted Newer, greener approaches stream ecologist, Dr. Bobbi Peckarsky, Across the nation, 37,099 river-restoration projects cost their Emeritus Professor from Cornell U., proponents and taxpayers an average of over $1 billion per now Honorary Fellow in Zoology at year (Bernhardt et al. 2005). Most had the goal of improving UW-Madison. water quality, but only a tiny minority had any monitoring How might Manitou Stream be data to allow comparison of benefits to costs—in either dollars rehabilitated? In North Carolina, or unintended impacts to the environment (ibid.). Among the Bernhardt’s data for engineered most degraded rivers and streams are those that flow through approaches to abating the urban stream urban areas. In Bernhardt’s terminology, urban streams are Dr. Emily Bernhardt solution indicate an average cost of over $1 “disconnected from their floodplains and hyperconnected to their million per project, with minimal benefit watersheds,” through drainage channels and stormwater pipes. (ecosystem services) when they fail to reconnect the stream to its The Arboretum’s Manitou Stream, near the intersection floodplain. Typical projects aim to remove obstructions to flow, of Nakoma Road and Manitou Way, fits this description. grade the banks (which releases sediment during construction), Following are answers to three questions: How would ecologists then stabilize streambeds and banks with riprap and turf restore Manitou Stream; how do engineers propose to control reinforcement matting.
    [Show full text]
  • Synthetic Chemicals As Agents of Global Change
    CONCEPTS AND QUESTIONS 84 Synthetic chemicals as agents of global change Emily S Bernhardt1*†, Emma J Rosi2†, and Mark O Gessner3,4 Though concerns about the proliferation of synthetic chemicals – including pesticides – gave rise to the modern environmental movement in the early 1960s, synthetic chemical pollution has not been included in most analyses of global change. We examined the rate of change in the production and variety of pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and other synthetic chemicals over the past four decades. We compared these rates to those for well- recognized drivers of global change such as rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, nutrient pollu- tion, habitat destruction, and biodiversity loss. Our analysis showed that increases in synthetic chemical production and diversification, particularly within the developing world, outpaced these other agents of global change. Despite these trends, mainstream ecological journals, ecological meetings, and ecological funding through the US National Science Foundation devote less than 2% of their journal pages, meeting talks, and science funding, respectively, to the study of synthetic chemicals. Front Ecol Environ 2017; 15(2): 84–90, doi:10.1002/fee.1450 hen Rachel Carson wrote “The most alarming of all have been recognized as one of the critical markers of Wman’s assaults upon the environment is the what defines the modern era as the Anthropocene contamination of air, earth, water, and sea with dangerous (Waters et al. 2016), a new geologic epoch. Many of these and even lethal materials” (Carson 1962), she raised grave novel chemical entities are pesticides and pharmaceuti- concerns about the proliferation of pesticides in the US. cals – organic chemicals that are specifically designed to At that time there were 200 pesticides on the US market, kill or prevent the growth of unwanted organisms (weeds, and the World Health Organization estimated that nearly pathogens, pests), or to interfere with organismal bio- one million metric tons of pesticides were being applied to chemistry (UNEP 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem Services in Practice: Management Decisions in the Public Sector— from Theory to Application
    Seminar 6 Ecosystem Services in Practice: Management Decisions in the Public Sector— From Theory to Application Speaker Heather Wright · Dr. Carl Shapiro · Dr. Lydia Olander · Dr. Mary Ruckleshaus Ecosystem Services and Public Sector Decision-Making Introduction and Conclusion by Heather Wright, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation INTRODUCTION Given the magnitude of the impact of global climate change and other human activities on our natural systems, there is a critical need for governments to support sustained and continued ecosystem benefits and to create incentives to maintain environmental capital. Traditionally, economic development goals have depended heavily on ecosystem services, but economic development activities tend to ignore the welfare of those ecosystems and thus jeopardize the well-being of people. This neglect of ecosystem services can increase ecological, social, and economic problems at local and global scales over the long term. As a result, long-term sustainability goals may be foregone for short-term economic wins. Linking policy and/or management objectives to ecosystem service objectives should and can be done in a way that aims to maximize economic, ecological, and social outcomes. To this end, decision-makers need to deliberately take into account the connections between development, ecosystems, and services provided. This particular seminar is devoted to looking more closely at how ecosystem services are considered in public sector decision-making. The examples showcased explore current ecosystem service approaches that are being applied in the public sector, and examine the rationale and incentives shaping management decisions. They also elucidate the key successes and shortcomings of their implementation. As demonstrated in the following cases, a pure command-and-control approach to mitigation is evolving into policies with a market-like mechanism (e.g., water funds, mitigation banks).
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Science and Sustainability for a Crowded Planet
    Ecological Science and Sustainability for a Crowded Planet 21st Century Vision and Action Plan for the Ecological Society of America Report from the Ecological Visions Committee* to the Governing Board of the Ecological Society of America April 2004 *Margaret A. Palmer1, Emily S.Bernhardt2, Elizabeth A. Chornesky3, Scott L. Collins4, Andrew P. Dobson5, Clifford S. Duke6, Barry D. Gold7, Robert. Jacobson8, Sharon Kingsland9, Rhonda Kranz6, Michael J Mappin10, M. Luisa Martinez11, Fiorenza Micheli12, Jennifer L. Morse1, Michael L Pace13, Mercedes Pascual14, Stephen Palumbi12, O.J. Reichman15, Alan Townsend16, and Monica G. Turner17 www.esa.org/ecovisions Executive Summary Environmental issues will define the 21st Century, as will a world with a large human population and ecosystems that are increasingly shaped by human intervention. The science of ecology can and should play a greatly expanded role in ensuring a future in which natural systems and the humans they include coexist on a more sustainable planet. Ecological science can use its extensive knowledge of natural systems to develop a greater understanding of how to manage, restore, and create the ecosystems that can deliver the key ecological services that sustain life on our planet. To accomplish this, ecologists will have to forge partnerships at scales and in forms they have not traditionally used. These alliances must implement action plans within three visionary areas: enhance the extent to which decisions are ecologically informed; advance innovative ecological research directed at the sustainability of an over-populated planet; and stimulate cultural changes within the science itself that build a forward-looking and international ecology. New partnerships and large-scale, cross-cutting activities will be key to incorporating ecological solutions in sustainability.
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE Jennifer J. Follstad Shah Gardner Commons
    CURRICULUM VITAE Jennifer J. Follstad Shah Gardner Commons, Room 4537, Salt Lake City, University of Utah 84112 (801) 585-5730 | [email protected] | https://envst.utah.edu/about/faculty-staff.php EDUCATION: Ph.D.; Biology: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 2006 B.A.; Political Science / French: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, 1995 Certificate of Political Studies: Institut d’Études Politique, Aix-en-Provence, France, 1994 RESEARCH INTERESTS: Effects of global change (rising temperature, altered river flow and resource supply, and biotic invasion) on the metabolism and biogeochemistry of lotic and riparian ecosystems, theoretical ecology (metabolic scaling, ecological stoichiometry, enzyme kinetics), river and riparian restoration RESEARCH AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: 2016-present Affiliate Faculty Member, Global Change and Sustainability Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 2016-present Assistant Professor (Lecturer), Environmental & Sustainability Studies, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 2015-present Research Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 2015-2017 Affiliate Faculty Member, innovative Urban Transitions and Arid-region Hydrosustainability Network (iUTAH), University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 2014-2016 Associate Instructor & Academic Advisor, Environmental & Sustainability Studies, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 2011-2014 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 2010-2018 Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT 2010 Visiting Scholar, Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC 2007-2009 National Science Foundation Bioinformatics Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, NC. Advisor: Dr. Emily Bernhardt 2000-2006 IGERT Freshwater Sciences Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program Fellow / Graduate Student, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
    [Show full text]
  • Can't See the Forest for the Stream?
    Articles Can’t See the Forest for the Stream? In-stream Processing and Terrestrial Nitrogen Exports EMILY S. BERNHARDT, GENE E. LIKENS, ROBERT O. HALL JR., DON C. BUSO, STUART G. FISHER, THOMAS M. BURTON, JUDY L. MEYER, WILLIAM H. MCDOWELL, MARILYN S. MAYER, W. BRECK BOWDEN, STUART E. G. FINDLAY, KATE H. MACNEALE, ROBERT S. STELZER, AND WINSOR H. LOWE – There has been a long-term decline in nitrate (NO3 ) concentration and export from several long-term monitoring watersheds in New England that cannot be explained by current terrestrial ecosystem models. A number of potential causes for this nitrogen (N) decline have been suggested, – including changes in atmospheric chemistry, insect outbreaks, soil frost, and interannual climate fluctuations. In-stream removal ofNO3 has not – – been included in current attempts to explain this regional decline in watershed NO3 export, yet streams may have high removal rates of NO3 . We make use of 40 years of data on watershed N export and stream N biogeochemistry from the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest (HBEF) to determine (a) whether there have been changes in HBEF stream N cycling over the last four decades and (b) whether these changes are of sufficient – magnitude to help explain a substantial proportion of the unexplained regional decline in NO3 export. Examining how the tempos and modes of change are distinct for upland forest and stream ecosystems is a necessary step for improving predictions of watershed exports. Keywords: ecosystem change, HBEF, nitrate, nutrient retention, stream ecosystems he watershed ecosystem concept as originally (Meyer et al. 1988), treating the stream as a “pipe” may lead Tformulated stated that “the vegetation of a watershed to erroneous conclusions about the role of the terrestrial sys- and the stream draining it are an inseparable unit function- tem.
    [Show full text]
  • William H. Schlesinger President Emeritus Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY
    William H. Schlesinger President Emeritus Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY Research and Teaching Interests in Ecosystem Analysis, Global Change, and Biogeochemical Cycling Orcid.org/0000-0002-1391-0885 Address: Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies: Office: 701 N. Lubec Road Millbrook, NY 12545 Lubec, ME 04652 Phone: 207-733-0039 Email: [email protected] Cellular: 207-214-1355 Homepages: http://www.caryinstitute.org/science-program/our-scientists/dr-william-h-schlesinger https://nicholas.duke.edu/people/faculty/schlesinger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Schlesinger Education: A.B. Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 1972 (cum laude) Ph.D. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1976 Employment History: 1976-1980 Assistant Professor of Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara 1980-2001 Department of Botany/Biology, Duke University Assistant Professor (1980-1983), Associate Professor (1983-1988), Professor (1988-1994), and James B. Duke Professor (1994-2001) 1998 Visiting Professor of Biogeochemistry, Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA; fall semester 2001-2007 Dean and James B. Duke Professor of Biogeochemistry, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University 2007- James B. Duke Professor Emeritus, Duke University 2007-2014 President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY 2008-2014 Visiting Fellow, School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, Yale University 2014- President Emeritus, Cary Institute of Ecosystem
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Minutes of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Summary Minutes of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board Panel for the Review of the EPA Water Body Connectivity Report Public Teleconference May 2, 2014 Date and Time: Friday, May 2, 2014, 1:00 – 5:00 p.m. Location: By teleconference Purpose: To discuss the Panel’s draft report (4/23/14) on the review of the EPA document Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence (September, 2013 External Review Draft, EPA/600/R-11/098B) Participants: Members of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Panel for the Review of the EPA Waterbody Connectivity Report (Panel roster is provided in attachment A): Dr. Amanda Rodewald Dr. Allison Aldous Dr. Genevieve Ali Dr. J. David Allan Dr. Lee Benda Dr. Emily Bernhardt Dr. Robert Brooks Dr. Kurt Fausch Dr. Siobhan Fennessy Dr. Michael Gooseff Dr. Lucinda Johnson Dr. Michael Josselyn Dr. Latif Kalin Dr. Kenneth Kolm Dr. Judith Meyer Dr. Mark Murphy Dr. Mark Rains Dr. K. Ramesh Reddy Dr. Emma Rosi-Marshall Dr. Jack Stanford Dr. Mazeika Sullivan Dr. Jennifer Tank Dr. Maurice Valett 1 SAB Staff: Dr. Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal Officer Ms. Iris Goodman, Designated Federal Officer Mr. Christopher S. Zarba, Acting Director, EPA SAB Staff Office Mr. Thomas Brennan, Deputy Director, EPA SAB Staff Office EPA Representatives: Dr. Laurie Alexander Dr. Jeffrey Frithsen Other Attendees: A list of others who requested access to the meeting by teleconference or webcast is provided in attachment B. Teleconference Summary: Convene the meeting Dr. Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Panel, convened the teleconference at 1:00 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Control Points in Ecosystems: Moving Beyond the Hot Spot Hot Moment Concept
    Ecosystems (2017) 20: 665–682 DOI: 10.1007/s10021-016-0103-y Ó 2017 Springer Science+Business Media New York 20TH ANNIVERSARY PAPER Control Points in Ecosystems: Moving Beyond the Hot Spot Hot Moment Concept Emily S. Bernhardt,1,2* Joanna R. Blaszczak,1,2 Cari D. Ficken,1,2 Megan L. Fork,3 Kendra E. Kaiser,3 and Erin C. Seybold2,3 1Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA; 2University Program in Ecology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA; 3Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA ABSTRACT The phrase ‘‘hot spots and hot moments’’ first en- geochemical behavior varies across spatiotemporal tered the lexicon in 2003, following the publication scales; (2) improved our ability to detect HSHM of the paper ‘‘Biogeochemical hot spots and hot phenomena; and (3) influenced our approaches to moments at the interface of terrestrial and aquatic restoration and ecosystem management practices. ecosystems’’ by McClain and others (Ecosystems We found that the HSHM concept has provided a 6:301–312, 2003). This paper described the potential highly fertile framework for a substantial volume of for rare places and rare events to exert a dispropor- research on the spatial and temporal dynamics of tionate influence on the movement of elements at nutrient cycling, and in doing so, has improved our the scale of landscapes and ecosystems. Here, we understanding of when and where biogeochemical examine how the cleverly named hot spot and hot rates are maximized. Despite the high usage of the moment concept (hereafter HSHM) has influenced term, we found limited examples of rigorous statis- biogeochemistry and ecosystem science over the last tical or modeling approaches that would allow 13 years.
    [Show full text]
  • How the Coal Industry and the Surface Mining States Ignore Science to the Detriment of the Appalachian Environment Sarah J
    Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law Volume 6 | Issue 1 Article 4 2013 The copS es Monkey Trial Revisited: How the Coal Industry and the Surface Mining States Ignore Science to the Detriment of the Appalachian Environment Sarah J. Surber West Virginia University Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kjeanrl Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Surber, Sarah J. (2013) "The cS opes Monkey Trial Revisited: How the Coal Industry and the Surface Mining States Ignore Science to the Detriment of the Appalachian Environment," Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law: Vol. 6 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kjeanrl/vol6/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture, & Natural Resources Law by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SCOPES MONKEY TRIAL REVISITED: HOW THE COAL INDUSTRY AND THE SURFACE MINING STATES IGNORE SCIENCE TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE APPALACHIAN ENVIRONMENT SARAH J. SURBER I. INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, scientists and environmental advocacy groups have challenged the proliferation of surface mining and especially mountaintop removal ("MTR") in Appalachia. However, MTR has been viable simply because the industry has not been required to meet the basic requirements of the Clean Water Act ("CWA")-a costly endeavor for any industry, but particularly the surface coal mining industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments from Dr. Emily Bernhardt – Outline to Guide Discussion of the Definition of Other Waters on a Case-By-Case Basis As Waters of the U.S
    8/21/14 Preliminary comments from individual members of the SAB Panel for the Review of the EPA Water Body Connectivity Report. These comments do not represent consensus SAB advice or EPA policy. DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Comments from Dr. Emily Bernhardt – Outline to Guide Discussion of the Definition of Other Waters on a Case-by-Case Basis as Waters of the U.S. (August 21, 2014) Issues to discuss re:Q3 **text in green italics is excerpted from the rule with locations indicated. Emphasis in excerpts inserted by ESB. I. Points where we should encourage authors of the rule to alter language to be consistent with SAB comments and the revised guidance. A. Use of the terms/categorical distinctions “directional” and “bidirectional” was strongly discouraged by the SAB in comments on the connectivity guidance document because of the exclusive emphasis of these terms on hydrologic connections. B. In a similar vein, although careful to describe connections beyond hydrologic ones, the rule text too often loses sight of the multiple dimensions of connectivity. This was an issue that the SAB pointed out in the guidance document as well. The rule should scrupulously avoid confusing statements such as: p. 22248 top of 2nd column “Lack of connection does not necessarily translate to lack of impact; even when lacking connectivity, waters can still impact chemical, physical, and biological conditions downstream. “ and farther down in that same column “Wetlands that lack surface connectivity in a particular season or year can, nonetheless, be highly connected in wetter seasons or years.” here, the authors clearly intend to make the point that an “other water” can have a significant nexus to a downstream water even without a surface water hydrologic connection or with only occasionally hydrologic connections but in both cases they implicitly support the idea that only surface water hydrologic connections matter.
    [Show full text]