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: 1920 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY March 21, 2000 MIKE CRAPO CHAIRMAN SENATE environment
& public works fisheries, wildlife and water ABANDONED MINES
BODY:
June 21, 2000 Statement of Chairman Mike
Crapo Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water Hearing on S. 1787 The
Subcommittee will come to order. This is the Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife, and Water hearing on S. 1787, the Good Samaritan Abandoned or Inactive
Mine Waste Remediation Act. I appreciate the witnesses joining
us here today to explore the issue of remediating and reclaiming abandoned and
inactive mines and to reflect on S. 1787, introduced by Senator Baucus.
Throughout the United States, several hundred thousand mine sites lie
undisturbed, a legacy of another time when mining practices were less
sophisticated than our current industry standards and when today's rigorous
environmental stewardship laws were not yet a glimmer on the horizon. In other
areas, the federal government directed mining companies to extract resources
quickly and without regard for ecological consequences to support war efforts or
economic growth. Although operated in full compliance with the governing laws at
the time, many abandoned and inactive mines pose environmental threats to
surrounding watersheds and downstream interests. However, because of the
economic uncertainties of the mining industry, the vast majority of these
so-called abandoned mine lands (AMLs) lack a viable owner with the resources to
remediate them. Others lie on public lands, where states and federal agencies
lack the incentives and funds to adopt them. Still others are truly abandoned,
with no identifiable owner in sight. As such, federal policy should encourage
federal agencies, states, and private parties to volunteer themselves to clean
up AMLs that would otherwise remain unremediated. In other words, we should help
them become "good samaritans" and promote voluntary stewards of the environment.
If unconnected parties step forward to help address these sites, everyone wins.
I believe there is little disagreement that this is a policy to which we should
all aspire. But how do we achieve this policy? Clearly, a combination of two
factors must be addressed. First, current legal and economic disincentives for
identifying good samaritans need to be eliminated. Today's witnesses are
expected to highlight the multitude of legal barriers, including Clean Water Act
and Superfund liability, that discourage parties for taking actions. The
existence of unnecessary regulatory burdens may also dissuade potential good
samaritans because of the time, costs, and, frankly, the hassle of bureaucratic
steps. If the Salvation Army required potential contributors to undertake a
search of all nearby or viable donors before contributing, very little actual
money would be collected. Second, it should be federal policy to invite as many
good samaritans as financially viable to contribute to the repair of our
environment. Neither a needy charity nor a worthwhile environmental cause would
reject a contribution or assistance from a willing donor. Is our environment any
less worthy a cause? To do so, we should err on the side of establishing as many
incentives as possible to identify good samaritans. Federal, state, and local
agencies could be parties, as well as private companies, and not just mining
sources. Any combination of the following could be created for the purpose
federal or state funding, tax incentives, permission to offset costs for
undertaking voluntary remediation, a trust fund, just to name a few options. For
so many years now, we have all heard that we can spare little expense when it
comes to healing Mother Nature; is it fair to shortchange her now when many are
willing to help? It is also appropriate to spend a few moments addressing
matters that would play an important part in whatever policy is created. First,
creating limitations on state rights and prerogatives in managing the
environment is counterproductive. In other words, states should retain full
authority to set water quality guidelines, issue permits, and act as clean-up
agents to ensure the environment is served. Moreover, the current record of the
EPA in reviewing and issuing NPDES permits is clearly lacking. Second, the
overly complicated rules proposed under this bill to preclude certain actors
from cleaning up sites on particular stretches of property may, in fact, scare
potential good samaritans away from volunteering themselves for cleanups on
property of mixed ownership involving federal, state, and private parties.
Third, if certain sites are of particular threat to the environment, even to the
level of warranting Superfund program attention, those areas should not be
excluded from cleanup by volunteers. If, by nature, these sites represent the
highest caliber of threat to human health and the environment, shouldn't these
sites be ones that are open to cleanup by willing parties, especially if the
state or federal government identifies them as priority sites? Unless the search
for liable parties finds, in the preponderance of cases, identifiable parties
who will actually clean up the site, shouldn't a volunteer be welcomed in their
absence? Fourth, with what external activities should a potential volunteer be
saddled? In other words, is it good policy to expect a good samaritan to expend
limited resources to undertake ownership searches rather than cleanups? Is that
the responsibility of the good samaritan? Fifth, is it appropriate to treat good
samaritans as untrustworthy in their willingness to remediate discharges not of
their fault by insisting on a lengthy and potentially expensive permit
application process? Given that the good samaritan is volunteering itself where
others will not step forward, what should federal policy be with regard to
reviewing permits? Sixth, what is the appropriate level of cleanup to hold good
samaritans to? If a party lacks the resources to restore a site to pristine
conditions, should it be precluded from contributing lesser environmental
benefits that it can only afford? Finally, if we establish a policy that calls
for only rigorous cleanups to be pursued and excludes marginal improvements,
should we allow good samaritans to offset their costs in the process of the
remediation activities? I look forward to an educational and enlightening
hearing, one that will explore the multitude of issues that involve the
remediation of AMLs. I welcome our witnesses here today and will be calling you
to the table after other members have an opportunity to share some comments.
Without objection, those who cannot join us will be permitted the opportunity to
provide written testimony for the record. Now, I turn to my the full committee
Ranking Member, Sen. Baucus. Sen. Baucus?
LOAD-DATE:
June 23, 2000, Friday 
