Last week the Environmental Protection Agency got an ear full of backlash from politicians and jobs proponents after it revoked a water permit for a mountain top mining site for Arch Coal Inc. Such criticism has become more commonplace as the agency takes on a seemingly new role that more directly challenges the practices of companies and municipalities. It may seem like the current EPA administration is abusing the federal weight of its office, but the fact is that it simply has a staff that is living up to the mission that the office was created for.
Disgruntled voices erupted across West Virginia when the EPA decided to withdraw a water permit for the Spruce Mine No. 1 site that had been issued by the Army Corps of Engineers in 2007 after it was unable to reach an agreement with the mining company for alternative solutions to the disposal of coal mine waste into the Appalachian watershed. EPA official, Peter S. Silva, framed the severity of the situation:
The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend. Coal and coal mining are part of our nation’s energy future and EPA has worked with companies to design mining operations that adequately protect our nation’s waters. We have a responsibility under the law to protect water quality and safeguard the people who rely on clean water. Kudos to Lisa Jackson and her staff for plowing through the pressure of political headwinds to arrive at the responsible decision.
In its proposed existence, the mine would have specifically disposed of 110 million cubic yards of mine waste into streams, buried more than 35,000 feet of high-quality streams with waste from dynamiting more than 2,200 acres of mountains and forests—effectively killing all fish, small invertebrates, salamanders and other wildlife that live there. And in case none of that strikes a chord, all of this would make its way into the watershed that all life taps into, including West Virginia residents. To me, it all sounds like plenty of great reasons not to proceed. As I have written about before, water is an often-neglected resource that we abuse across the country because many seem to think that its supply is limitless. The protection of our natural waterways is essential to maintaining our way of life.
Not everyone seemed to agree. Congressman Doc Hastings (R., Wash.) exclaimed, “At a time when West Virginia families desperately need new jobs, the Obama EPA is proactively destroying high paying family wage jobs by retroactively withdrawing permits.” West Virginia’s own Democratic Senator, Joe Manchin, went a step further in condemnation of the decision saying, “Today’s EPA decision in not just fundamentally wrong, it is an unprecedented act by the federal government that will cost our state and our nation even more jobs during the worst recession in this country’s history.”
Well if it costs jobs then it can’t be the right decision. Naturally, none of these politicians are touching on the regularity of drinking water contamination from the coal industry in West Virginia where chemical contaminants in groundwater can reach concentrations as high as 1000% above legal limits. These are things like arsenic, lead, chromium, beryllium or nickel that can cause everything from removing tooth enamel and skin rashes to organ failure and developmental problems. When I reread the Toxic Waters Report by the New York Times, it was just as disturbing as the first time. For those that have not seen it, I highly recommend it. Is preserving jobs really worth poisoning American families?
After having years of administrations that treated the EPA as little more than environmental window dressing, it is easy to forget what it was created for in the first place. A look at the original 1970 message to Congress provides some insight.
Our national government today is not structured to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food. Indeed, the present governmental structure for dealing with environmental pollution often defies effective and concerted action.
Despite its complexity, for pollution control purposes the environment must be perceived as a single, interrelated system. Present assignments of departmental responsibilities do not reflect this interrelatedness.
Not bad for President Richard Nixon, and the latter part resonates with the essential position of Intercon: that only through regarding actions as an interconnected string of repercussions can we make progress on achieving a sustainable economy. The text goes on to outline the principal roles and functions of the EPA, but one of them clearly stands out for me:
The establishment and enforcement of environmental protection standards consistent with national environmental goals.
Simply put, the EPA is an enforcement agency meant to forestall activities that break the law. While there are plenty of people (like coal companies) that would rather the office be confined to making promotional pamphlets, holding environmental pep rallies and doling out green grant funds, we are all better served by an agency that investigates environmental degradation and when it is discovered, actually ACTS to stop it.
From politicians of coal-producing states, the ridicule is as predictable as it is unfounded. I have yet to come across anyone complaining about the decision saying that the EPA was incorrect in their environmental assessment or the degree of resulting pollution that the Spruce mine would create, implying that job sustenance alone should legitimize dangerous practices that would irreversibly harm the surrounding environs. Should we have not banned asbestos insulation to keep more production and distribution jobs intact? Even in the current recession we cannot afford to cut the corners of best practices for the sake of giving people a paycheck—especially for the first link in a supply chain that ends in producing the most polluting source of power in the country.
I was pleased to see energy blogger Jesse Jenkins point out that the political supporters of mountaintop removal mining do not comprise the majority. On the contrary, he notes that 50 members of Congress recently sent a letter to the EPA thanking them for doing the right thing by taking steps to end mountaintop removal. The contrarians that shout the loudest may get their spot in the press, but the rest of us should remember that their strength is on the decline. Jenkins notes that Senator Robert C. Byrd recently was quoted saying, “It is also a reality that the practice of mountaintop removal mining has a diminishing constituency in Washington. It is not a widespread method of mining, with its use confined to only three states. Most members of Congress, like most Americans, oppose the practice, and we may not yet fully understand the effects of mountaintop removal mining on the health of our citizens.”
As for West Virginia, the migration away from coal as the pillar of the state’s employment should begin now. If following environmental laws makes mining and burning coal more expensive then perhaps it is not really as cheap as everyone is lead to believe. The business community is getting all of the warnings it should need that underscore how coal’s time in the limelight has ended and it will eventually go the way of the buggy-whip. The state should begin its switch to other industries, like geothermal for example. Ironically, researchers have found that one of the nation’s most coal-rich states is also the largest geothermal hotspot in the Eastern U.S.
Since its inception, the EPA has completed over 1,000 cleanups of toxic Superfund sites, helped Americans save tens of billions of dollars in energy bills (and the resources behind them) through the Energy Star program and drastically improved the quality of air and water in the country. More than ever, the EPA is doing exactly what it was created to do and we are all healthier for it. Those ranting and raving should back off, the EPA is just doing its job.
Image Credit: thepeoplesmusic.us ,
January 22, 2011 at 4:04 pm
I agree, Tyler,well done. People forget that when the EPA was established 40+ years ago people could smell the rivers running through their communities and there were few standards and no enforcement for bodies of water or drinking water. EPA has done excellent research and standard setting. Their enforcement has been uneven. The magnitude of that job overwhelms their resources. Their willingness to make decisions that are difficult politically is refreshing but that is their charge. Health regulations aren’t abandoned when unemployment goes up to 9% and reinstated when it is down to 5%. People will be drinking the water from those rivers long after the current recession and those narrowly focused politicians have been forgotten.