Curbing the Strippers

Few pieces of legislation have started more arguments than the various bills Congress has considered to regulate strip mining of coal--a method that accounts for more than half the 600 million tons of coal produced annually in the U.S. Environmental groups, ranchers and farmers favor such a law; they are dismayed by the landslides, soil erosion, water pollution and impairment of natural beauty that often result from the stripping away of tons of topsoil to get at rich coal seams lying just beneath the earth's surface. Energy industries argue that to achieve some form of energy self-sufficiency, the U.S. must mine all the coal that it can. Proponents and opponents cannot agree on how much production might be lost because of regulation, how much strip-mining controls might cost the consumer, or much else. The Federal Government has been divided: environmental agencies favored controls voted by Congress last year, but the Federal Energy Administration opposed them.

Congress and the White House cannot agree either. President Ford pocket vetoed a strip-mining bill last December, but later said that he would sign it if 27 changes were made. Last week Congress voted overwhelmingly to send an only slightly modified bill back to the White House. Administration officials have hinted at another veto, but the chances of the bill becoming law are nonetheless fairly strong. So many Senators favored the bill that the Senate last week did not bother to take a count, but passed it by voice vote. In the House, the bill passed by a margin of 293 to 115, or three more votes than would be necessary to override another no from the White House.

Among the key provisions of the proposed Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1975:

P: Strip-mined land must be returned to its "approximate original contour" and restored to a condition capable of supporting whatever uses it had prior to mining (farming, grazing, recreation). Operators are responsible for revegetating the land, as well as for replenishing the quantity and quality of local water resources.

P: Operators must pay 35-c- for every ton of strip-mined coal, and 15-c- for every deep-mined ton, into a new fund for reclamation of abandoned mines. The aim is to restore some 100 million acres of already stripped land, primarily in Appalachia where deep hillside gashes mark worked-out steep-slope mines.

P: Anyone adversely affected by strip-mining operations may bring suit against the U.S., the state, the operator or the regulatory authorities, including the Secretary of the Interior.

P: Permits for strip mining on alluvial valley floors west of the 100th meridian (which runs from North Dakota to Texas) will not be issued for operations that threaten existing or potential farming or ranching activities.

For many coal companies, these western areas, chiefly in Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota, have been the land of the future. Reserves estimated at 32 billion tons lie close to the surface and are easy to mine. The low sulfur content of the coal makes it attractive to pollution-prone utilities. The bill throws into doubt, at least for the moment, many of the coal companies' plans for expansion. "It is fair to say that this bill was not designed to facilitate the mining of western coal but rather to prevent it," complains Donald Cook, chairman of the nation's second-largest coal user, the American Electric Power Co.

No Choice. Other critics of the bill contend that the main impact will be felt by small strip miners in Appalachia, who cannot afford the reclamation costs, or by consumers, whose electric bills could rise as much as 15% because utilities would either buy more high-priced oil to substitute for lost coal output or pay more for coal itself. Some electric companies, in fact, may not even have a choice. Last week the Government announced hearings on whether to order nine Midwestern utilities to use coal as fuel instead of oil or natural gas. Before the Government's authority to require such conversions ends June 30, according to Federal Energy Administrator Frank Zarb, another 55 power plants may be forced to make the same switch.

The bill's backers, meanwhile, are scoffing at alarmist assessments. Democratic Senator Henry Jackson of Washington notes sarcastically that Administration experts have estimated the amount of production that might be lost at anywhere from 14 million to 141 million tons a year; the figures, he says, are "basically meaningless."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.