Faso defends repeal of Obama stream rule
U.S. Rep. John Faso says the federal Stream Protection Rule would have regulated the coal industry out of business and eliminated tens of thousands of jobs, so overturning it “made sense.” Representatives of some environmental groups, however, disagree, saying the regulations would have increased jobs overall and that current regulations in place do not do enough to protect streams and forests. In a letter to the editor of the Freeman dated
Feb. 28, Faso, R-Kinderhook, said President Barack Obama’s administration issued numerous new and farreaching regulatory mandates prior to his leaving office, including the Stream Protection Rule. He said that rule, rejected by the House and Senate, would have had a major impact on coal-producing regions in the nation.
Faso said the regulations would have destroyed a third of the nation’s coalmining workforce, on top of the 68,000 such jobs lost in recent years. He also said the U.S. Department of Interior did not meaningfully
engage with stakeholders for their input on the rule.
“The impact of this action has been misrepresented by opponents who falsely allege that dumping of coal mining waste into streams and waterways will occur,” Faso said. “I support the Clean Water Act, and the overturning of this hastily conceived and implemented rule does nothing to affect the protections established by the important decades-old law. The Clean Water Act treats all discharges into the nation’s waterways as unlawful unless specifically authorized by permit.”
Faso said that act’s protections have not changed and that a 1983 regulation still in place prohibits surface mining within 100 feet
of streams.
“The reality is that this rule was not an effort to protect streams; it sought to regulate the coal industry out of business and eliminate tens of thousands of jobs in that industry,” Faso said. “Overturning it, while maintaining our nation’s commitment to high environmental standards, made sense.”
Rebecca Hammer, a staff attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Water Program, and Neil Gormley, a staff attorney for the nonprofit environmental law organization Earthjustice, both said Faso’s letter was misinformed. In separate phone interviews, they each said the Stream Protection Rule would have increased jobs.
Hammer said the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement found the rule would eliminate about 120 mining jobs nationwide, but would increase by 280 the number of jobs related to compliance, such as for monitoring.
“This was a really modest rule,” Gormley said. He said it was going to “close loopholes that right now allow companies to avoid cleaning up after themselves.”
Hammer and Gormley both said the loss of jobs in the coal mining industry has resulted from competing, cheaper sources of energy, such as natural gas. Gormley said there also have been technological advances that have put people out of work.
Additionally, Hammer
said, the notion that the rule was rushed is “frankly absurd.” She said the Department of the Interior worked on the rule for more than eight years and received more than 100,000 comments on a draft version. Hammer said it was a transparent, open process.
As for protections already in place, Hammer said there have been thousands of miles of streams and about 2.5 million acres of forest in the Appalachia region destroyed since the 1983 regulation Faso cited.
Gormley said the dominant form of surface coal mining in Appalachia is mountaintop-removal mining. He said a topographic analysis from a few months ago showed the region was 10 to 40 percent flatter than it was 20 years ago. Gormley said mining, waste disposal and extraction happens within 100 feet of, and even in, streams.
“That’s why the Stream Protection Rule was so needed,” he said.
Faso on Friday said he believed Hammer and Gormley were “dead wrong,” with the exception of natural gas’s impact on coal. He said the Stream Protection Rule was an overreach of authority and the notion that mine waste is just dumped into streams is false.
Faso also said at least 11 states that were supposed to be involved in the process to create the rule were shut out, including some in the Appalachia region, like Virginia, West Virginia and Kentucky.