Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
March 21, 2000, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1867 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY March 21, 2000 SARA KENDALL WASHINGTON, D.C. REPRESENTATIVE WESTERN
ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS SENATE environment &
public works fisheries, wildlife and water ABANDONED MINES
BODY:
June 21, 2000 Testimony of Sara Kendall,
Western Organization of Resource Councils on S. 1787, the Good Samaritan
Abandoned or Inactive Mine Waste Reclamation Act Subcommittee
on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works Good morning. My name is Sara Kendall, and I am the Washington, D.C.
Representative for the Western Organization of Resource Councils, or WORC. WORC
is an association of grassroots community- based organizations in six western
states -- the Dakota Resource Council in North Dakota, Dakota Rural Action in
South Dakota, the Idaho Rural Council, the Northern Plains Resource Council in
Montana, the Powder River Basin Resource Council in Wyoming, and the Western
Colorado Congress. We work primarily on environmental and family farm
agriculture issues. Many of our members live and work in communities impacted by
mining and abandoned mine lands. I'd like to start by commending the
Subcommittee for its interest in addressing the persistent problem of pollution
from abandoned mines. Abandoned mines are one of the major sources of water
pollution in western states. These sites release sediments, heavy metals and
other toxic chemicals into community water supplies, are harmful to fish and
wildlife, and often impact local economies. The primary obstacles that must be
addressed if these sites are to be cleaned up are the minimal efforts currently
being made to track down responsible parties and the lack of sufficient funds
for remediation. But, we acknowledge that it is also important for states to
stretch the funds they do have as far as possible. In addition, we recognize
that, at some abandoned mine sites, it would be difficult to restore streams to
the applicable water quality standards. For these reasons, we support the
concept at the core of Senator Baucus' Good Samaritan legislation -- reducing
water quality standards and liability for third parties that want to clean up
abandoned mines. I'd like to express WORC's appreciation for changes that
Senator Baucus and the Western Governors' Association made from earlier drafts
of the legislation to address concerns raised by our organization and others: --
S. 1787 is restricted to state, tribal and municipal governments, eliminating
the concern that loopholes in earlier versions might have allowed a potentially
responsible party to qualify as a good Samaritan. -- The bill's requirement that
revenue generated through the use or sale of minerals be used for additional
remediation alleviates the concern that it is inappropriate for a good Samaritan
to profit from cleaning up a site to anything less than Clean Water Act
standards, but does so without going so far as to prohibit the sale of such
resources and thereby shut off a potential source of additional clean up funds.
-- The ten-year sunset leaves room for the Congress to extend the Act if it is a
success, but ensures that it will automatically lapse if it is not. -- The more
detailed requirements for an analysis of baseline conditions at the site will
help good Samaritans document their successes and respond if charges are made
that their remediation efforts increased pollution from an abandoned site. --
Limiting the bill to abandoned hard rock mine sites removes questions over the
need for reducing water quality standards at coal sites, where clean ups are
occurring at a much higher rate than they are at hard rock sites, thanks to the
coal royalty that funds an abandoned mine land clean up program. We view all of
these changes as positive developments that will enhance abandoned mine
remediation and protect the interests of communities and taxpayers. We continue
to have concerns, however, with a couple of S. 1 787's provisions. We remain
concerned that the best efforts of the states, tribes or municipalities will not
always succeed in improving water quality, and in some cases may actually result
in increased pollution. S. 1787 would not hold good Samaritans responsible for
meeting the clean up goals they themselves set, or even to the level of
pollution documented in the baseline analysis, as long as they stick to their
remediation plans. We believe that if the good Samaritan actually increases the
pollution from the mine site, they should be held liable for returning the site
to the condition documented in the baseline analysis. It is a basic tenet of the
Clean Water Act that any party must try to achieve some objective or standard
for water quality. While, as I said earlier, we recognize that it would be
difficult to restore streams at some abandoned mines to the applicable water
quality standards, we strongly urge the incorporation of a mechanism for
establishing a clear objective good Samaritan remediation efforts, with input
from people in the impacted communities. There are mechanisms in place today
under the Clean Water Act, such as a Use Attainability Assessment (or some
modification thereof), that could be used to address this concern. Finally, the
reduced water quality standards and liability waiver should only apply to mines
that are truly abandoned, and not to sites that are inactive, in bankruptcy
proceedings or permitted. In closing, we ask that you consider, in addition to
this Good Samaritan legislation, a more comprehensive approach to the problems
associated with abandoned hard rock mines in the West. Many states still need to
inventory their abandoned mine sites and set priorities for clean up. Strategies
need to be developed to remediate the high priority sites, including attempting
to identify the parties who own the mine sites and are responsible for the
pollution. Funds are needed for states, tribes or municipalities to pursue
responsible parties and, when necessary, to remediate pollution problems.
Without an adequate funding source, no waiver of liability will even begin to
address the problem. Although S. 1787 has the potential to facilitate the clean
up of a number of abandoned mine sites, this potential is very limited because
the Good Samaritan approach picks at the edges of a problem fundamentally caused
by an antiquated law and outdated regulations under that law. We hope that the
Subcommittee will address the concerns we've raised and move forward with S.
1787, but we urge you to make it part of a more comprehensive approach to the
abandoned mine problem. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
LOAD-DATE: June 23, 2000, Friday
