It's not a simple issue. Coal now provides more than half of the fuel needed to run the nation's electrical generators. At least a third of the coal mined in West Virginia comes from mountaintop removal - a technique that is safer, cheaper and more productive than underground mining. To top it off, the perils of underground mining have been spotlighted lately.

But many of the residents who live near these strip mining sites feel helpless. While the law now requires coal companies to reclaim the land they mine, locals say that their once pristine surroundings are now eyesores and that the constant vibrations have forced some to relocate. All told, more than 1,200 miles of streams have been buried by the practice.

The administration, which introduced the proposal in August and is accepting comments until late October, would change the interpretation of the so-called stream buffer zone rule. That provision says that no mining can take place within 100 feet of a river or a stream unless developers can prove water quality and quantity would be unaffected. The "clarification" would require operators to minimize the amount of rubble to "no larger than needed" as well as force developers to later repair the land.

The president has made clear that he believes that the United States needs to rely more on its own domestic resources - a philosophical persuasion that does give energy producers more rights. "With this proposal, we can establish a consistent, nationwide means to reduce the impacts of surface coal mining and provide clear rules specifying what mining activities can and cannot be conducted near bodies of water," says Stephen Allred, assistant secretary of interior for land and minerals management.

Lower federal courts have agreed with the environmental position. But those decisions have been overturned by higher courts that say such rulings have overreached. The Environmental Protection Agency, meanwhile, altered the Clean Water Act in 2002 to allow mine waste to be discarded while in 2004 it loosened the rules affecting stream buffer zones. The proposed changes would liberalize those criteria even more.

Ecological Footprint

The mining industry takes issue with the claims against it, saying that it is heavily regulated and is subject to numerous federal and state rules. The proposed changes, it says, would provide regulators with more comprehensive information upon which to base their permitting decisions, in part, by clarifying the scientific and technical data used in the decision-making process. That should result in improvements, it adds, noting that new approaches to restoration of mined sites should also come about because of the changes.

If the supply of eastern coal production from West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee is curtailed because mountaintop mining is banned, proponents of the technique say that it would mean that certain utilities would import coal with inferior heat content and at potentially higher costs. Or, it could put a greater burden on natural gas, which is much cleaner but far less plentiful. Under any condition, consumers would end up paying higher utility bills, they say.

The National Mining Association says that the environmental community is right to be concerned. But, it emphasizes that the coal sector provides thousands of well-paying jobs and produces an essential commodity. Environmentally, it says that it has restored 2.2 million acres of land while providing valuable wildlife habitats and commercially viable sites in regions where such land is limited. It also says that it has pioneered innovative reclamation tools and techniques that have enhanced landscapes and water quality.

"Once again, Americans are focusing on the ability of domestic coal resources to meet increasing energy requirements at the same time we are concerned to safeguard our environment," says Harold Quinn, general counsel for the mining group.

But green groups say that the practice of mountaintop mining is harmful and must be limited. Unless companies are forced to abide by the law as it now stands, they say that huge swaths of land will be forever ruined while area residents will be exposed to more hazards and the deterioration of their water quality. Industry, they add, is more concerned with cutting costs and maintaining production than in protecting communities.

Because the social and economic costs of current strip mining practices are so high, critics of the technique now advocate for the Clean Water Protection Act. That measure, which will soon be introduced by Representatives Frank Pallone and Christopher Shays, will try to reestablish what they say is the original intent of the law by disallowing mining debris to be buried in rivers and streams.

"Do you know how much electricity we get out of that mountain for the coal? An entire mountain provides an hour's worth of electricity for the U.S," says Mike McKinney, University of Tennessee geology professor, as quoted in the Highlands Voice.

Mountaintop mining is divisive, underscoring the sharp sentiments among stakeholders over jobs and the environment. If the war of words continues to play out on the public stage, however, one side or the other could end up being the big loser. The nation's leadership will change and so will philosophical persuasions. A compromise seems to be in order and one that recognizes the very real concerns of both sides.

Copyright © 1996-2006 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.