July, 31 2012, 04:52pm EDT
Appalachian Communities Win Case Against Unlawful Mountaintop Removal Mining Permit While Federal District Court Issues Decision Finding EPA Must Act Through Regulation, not Guidance
Appalachian communities win challenge to state permit, but still seeking federal protection from devastating mines and pollution
WASHINGTON
Today rulings were issued in both West Virginia and the U.S. District Court demonstrating the need for Environmental Protection Agency standards that are based on the overwhelming scientific consensus that pollution from surface coal mining and coal waste disposal threatens Appalachian streams.
Today the West Virginia Environmental Quality Board (WV EQB) ruled that the state's Clean Water Act permit for a mountaintop removal mine, Patriot Mining Company's New Hill West mine, is unlawful because it does not limit harmful pollution that degrades water quality. Also today the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in the coal industry case challenging a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance document meant to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act and protect Appalachian communities from extreme mountaintop removal mining pollution. This court found that, to protect Appalachian streams from the harm caused by mining pollution, EPA should have issued a formal regulation instead of a guidance document. On these grounds, the court vacated the EPA's conductivity guidance.
The West Virginia Environmental Quality Board decision demonstrates that the science is clear and stricter permits are necessary for protecting Appalachian waterways from coal mining pollution, including very high levels of conductivity and total dissolved solids that harm aquatic life. The EPA relied on these same studies to support its final guidance, and although the federal court ruled against the guidance, nothing in its decision questioned the scientific consensus behind the guidance. The federal court ruling also does not affect the West Virginia Environmental Quality Board decision.
In July 2011, the EPA issued this final guidance following its own two extensive peer-reviewed scientific reports, as well as multiple independent peer-reviewed scientific reports, that all found that mountaintop removal mines create lasting, irreparable harm to streams and water quality. In light of these scientific reports, EPA issued the guidance to assist its staff in meeting longstanding and well established requirements of the Clean Water Act. This final guidance also came after the EPA's consideration of 60,000 public comments.
Sierra Club and Appalachian Mountain Advocates won the case in front of the West Virginia Environmental Quality Board.
In the federal case, the Sierra Club, Coal River Mountain Watch (WV), Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (WV), West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards (VA), and Statewide Organizing for Community eMpowerment (TN) -- represented by Earthjustice and the Appalachian Mountain Advocates -- opposed this coal mining industry lawsuit as intervenors in support of EPA's effort to follow the Clean Water Act, consider the latest science, and protect America's waters from destruction.
The following are their statements:
Said Ed Hopkins, Sierra Club's Environmental Quality Program Director:
"We are heartened to see the West Virginia Environmental Quality Board affirm basic protections of the Clean Water Act, and overturn the unlawful mountaintop removal mining permit today. In addition to continuing to follow the Clean Water Act consistent with federal court rulings, we urge the EPA to adopt the water quality benchmarks in the guidance addressed by today's court decision as federal rules to ensure full protection for all local communities from the dangerous industry of mountaintop removal coal mining," "Together, the state environmental quality board and EPA must ensure that all Appalachian communities finally receive the protection from mountaintop removal mining that we deserve."
Said Dianne Bady, co-director of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, based in West Virginia:
"We're saddened that this federal court ruling will prevent the EPA from using this scientific guidance to protect Appalachia's waters from mountaintop removal mining operations that have been linked to increased harm to human health. But with or without this one particular guidance document, the EPA still has a duty to protect our waters and our people directly under the Clean Water Act, and it is a relief to see our state environmental quality board affirm the science and follow the Clean Water Act. In keeping with today's decisions, we urge the EPA to continue advancing strong, science-based policies to safeguard our lives."
Said Vernon Haltom, executive director of Coal River Mountain Watch in West Virginia:
"Our people's health and the survival of our communities depend on strong enforcement of the laws and regulations intended to protect us from pollution. Since the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection chooses instead to enable unfettered pollution from mountaintop removal, we must rely on the U.S. EPA. It is a victory to see the state environmental quality board affirm fundamental requirements of the Clean Water Act. Because the science is clear on what we need to do to protect our waters, we hope that today's court decision does not weaken EPA's resolve to protect us from mountaintop removal, which is increasingly linked to deadly human health problems."
Said Emma Cheuse, Earthjustice attorney:
"EPA and state regulators still have a legal duty to uphold the Clean Water Act, and today's court decision recognizes EPA's authority to set rules to protect our waterways. It is essential for both EPA and state agencies charged with protecting communities to follow the science, and they must doing everything possible under the law to prevent the irreversible destruction of mountaintop removal mining, before more mountains and streams are destroyed forever."
Said Rick Handshoe of the Kentuckians For The Commonwealth:
"The federal court decision is a setback for the people of Appalachia. This conductivity guidance - based on scientific evidence - gives us the first sign that something may be wrong with our water. Whatever may happen in the courts, assuming today's decision is appealed, the science EPA has highlighted will continue to be a great tool for people in Appalachia. It's been a great tool for me. I've tested a creek where the water was crystal clear but the conductivity meter ran over 4000 micro Siemens. That told me something was wrong, and after further testing was done we saw how bad it was - some of the pollutant levels were 100 times the water standard. We need to do something federally to protect Appalachians from mountaintop removal mining. And we will continue to look to the Kentucky governor to use this science to protect the water and health of people all over the Commonwealth."
Said Cindy Rank, mining board chair of the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy:
"For years mining companies have fought science and even minimal clean water protections under the 40-year-old Clean Water Act using every legal trick in the book. In some cases, such as today's federal court decision, they have won. This continues to put us living in Appalachia in the unconscionable position of having to document our own communities' sickness, disease and other unexplained health impacts as reasons to finally stop the devastating practice of mountaintop removal coal mining. As we do this, it's critical that West Virginia keep doing as it did today and use strong science to deny permits."
Said Cathie Bird, chair of the E3 Committee of Statewide Organizing for Community eMpowerment:
"EPA's conductivity guidance supports a broader science-based strategy to keep mountain ecosystems resilient and healthy. While the court's decision is disappointing, we hope the EPA and the states will continue to use the full force of their authority under the Clean Water Act to strengthen the protection of water, upon which human communities and other species depend."
FURTHER INFORMATION:
Final Guidance: Improving EPA Review of Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Operations Under the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the Environmental Justice Executive Order: https://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/Final_Appalachian...
Information on the EPA's Clean Water Act oversight of Appalachian surface mining activities: https://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/mining.cfm
Information on Appalachian groups' intervention to support EPA in lawsuit filed by the coal mining industry: https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2010/appalachian-and-national-organiz...
Final EPA Scientific Reports on Water Quality and Mountaintop Removal Mining Pollution Impacts:
* Field-based Aquatic Life Benchmark (2011): https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=233809
* Effects of Mountaintop Mines/Valley Fills (2011): https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=225743
Final EPA Report: Review of Clean Water Act SS 402 Permitting for Surface Coal Mines by Appalachian States (2010): https://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/pdf/Final_Appalachian_Mining_P...
Contact:
Liz Judge, Earthjustice, (202) 797-5237 or (970) 710-9002 (cell)
Oliver Bernstein, Sierra Club, (512) 289-8618
Dan Radmacher, Appalachian Mountain Advocates, (540) 798-6683
Cindy Rank, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, (304) 924-5802
Vernon Haltom, Coal River Mountain Watch, (304) 854-2182
Vivian Stockman, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, (304) 360-1979
Rick Handshoe, Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, (606) 358-4912
Jane Branham, Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards, (276) 679-7505
Casey Self, Statewide Organizing for Community eMpowerment, (865) 249-7488
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
Listen Live: US Supreme Court Hears Outrageous Argument That Trump Is Above the Law
"The American people deserve a Supreme Court that does not hesitate to declare that no one is above the law, including a former president," said one campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
After months of delay, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday will hear oral arguments in a closely watched case on whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from criminal charges stemming from his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss—an argument that legal experts say is both absurd and dangerous.
Listen live to the oral arguments, which are set to begin at 10:00 am ET:
Thursday's proceedings mark the high court's final argument of its current term, and pro-democracy campaigners are calling on the justices to quickly reject the former president's sweeping immunity claim so he can face trial on federal election subversion charges before his November rematch with President Joe Biden.
As Bloomberg's Greg Stohr noted earlier this week, Thursday's oral arguments give "Special Counsel Jack Smith only a narrow window to put the former president in front of a Washington jury before voters go to the polls on November 5."
"With the trial on hold until the high court rules," Stohr added, "Smith needs a clear-cut victory, and he needs it quickly."
Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said in a statement Thursday that "the Supreme Court's right-wing majority has already handed Trump a temporary victory by stalling this case for months, allowing him to delay accountability for his criminal attempts to cling to power."
"With so much at stake for our democracy, the Supreme Court should rule swiftly and decisively in this case," said Eldridge. "Accountability delayed could mean accountability denied."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Grand Jury Indicts Top Trump Aides, 11 Arizona Republicans Over 'Fake Electors' Scheme
Had it succeeded, said the state's attorney general, the scheme would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
Apr 25, 2024
A grand jury in Arizona on Wednesday charged seven aides to Donald Trump and nearly a dozen Republican officials over a "fake electors" scheme in the state that aimed to keep the former president in power after his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.
Trump, who is currently facing nearly 90 charges across four criminal cases as he runs for another White House term, was described as "unindicted co-conspirator 1" in the 58-page indictment, which was announced by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.
"The people of Arizona elected President Biden," Mayes, a Democrat, said Wednesday. "Unwilling to accept this fact, the defendants charged by the state grand jury allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency. Whatever their reasoning was, the plot to violate the law must be answered for."
The indictment names former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, sitting state Republican Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Lamon, and seven others as the "fake electors" who sought to declare Trump the rightful winner of the state's presidential contest.
The names of other individuals indicted by the state grand jury are redacted, but the document's descriptions make clear that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and top Trump legal strategist Boris Epshteyn are among those facing felony charges—including fraud, forgery, and conspiracy.
"In Arizona, defendants, unindicted coconspirators, and others pressured the three groups of election officials responsible for certifying election results to encourage them to change the election results," the document reads. "Discussions about using the Republican electors to change the outcome of the election began as early as November 4, 2020. Those plans evolved during November based on memos drafted by [an attorney for the Trump campaign, Kenneth Chesebro]."
Mayes said Wednesday that had the fake elector scheme succeeded, it would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
"It effectively would have made their right to vote meaningless," said Mayes.
A state grand jury, made up of everyday, regular Arizonans, has handed down felony indictments in the ongoing investigation into the fake elector scheme in Arizona. pic.twitter.com/Nu8GcD4ZqJ
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) April 24, 2024
Alex Gulotta, state director of All Voting Is Local Action Arizona, said Wednesday that "the indictment of the eleven fake electors is one of the first steps required in holding these election deniers accountable for their alleged attempts to take power away from voters by disrupting our free and fair elections."
"Arizonans deserve to trust the election officials responsible for administering our elections and preserving our democracy," said Gulotta, "and this is a positive step forward as we continue to strengthen the foundations of our democracy and restore faith in our elections."
The Arizona Republicreported Wednesday that "several of the Arizona electors have previously claimed they were merely offering Congress a backup plan, though nothing in the documents they sent to Congress and the National Archives backs up that assertion."
"The indictment includes several statements the false electors made on social media that contradict those claims," the newspaper observed.
Jenny Guzman, director of Common Cause's Arizona program, said the indictment "marks the start of a new chapter for the fake elector scheme that has plagued Arizona."
"Arizonans are still dealing with the fallout from the false electors and the Big Lie about the 2020 elections," said Guzman. "We are relieved that the investigation by Attorney General Mayes has concluded and Arizonans can now know that what comes next is accountability. These efforts by these fake electors to undermine the will of Arizona’s voters have had implications far beyond their failed attempt to overthrow the 2020 election."
"This indictment can reassure all Arizonans that if anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, attempts to undermine their vote, consequences will follow," Guzman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Urges FEC to Investigate Trump Campaign Over Scheme for Legal Fees
"By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much."
Apr 24, 2024
A campaign finance watchdog on Wednesday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, affiliated political groups, and an accounting firm of violating U.S. law in a scheme "seemingly designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump's legal bills."
The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said that "evidence appears to show an illegal arrangement between several Trump-affiliated committees and a compliance firm named Red Curve Solutions that is designed to obscure the identities of those providing legal services and how much they are being paid."
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money."
CLC alleges that the Trump campaign, Trump's political action committee (PAC) Save America, and three affiliated organizations "violated federal reporting requirements based on a scheme in which the committees reportedly paid over $7.2 million—described as 'reimbursement for legal' costs or expenses"—to Red Curve.
The watchdog also said that Red Curve appears to be "making or facilitating illegal contributions that violate either federal contribution limits or the prohibition on corporate contributions."
According to CLC:
Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees.
According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much they are being paid—through this arrangement.
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money," CLC senior director of campaign finance Erin Chlopak said in a statement. "When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot."
"The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees, and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump's legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures—and the FEC must investigate immediately," Chlopak added.
Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—faces 91 federal and state felony charges related to his role in the January 6 insurrection and his organization's business practices. He is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The twice-impeached former president has been open about his use of campaign donations to pay his legal costs.
The new CLC filing comes a day after the watchdog filed separate FEC complaints urging investigations into a pair of Trump-affiliated "scam PACs," which "pretend to fundraise for major candidates or issues while secretly diverting almost all of their donors' money back into fundraising or the fraudsters' own pockets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular