

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

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.
800-584-6460"Feel like this isn't gonna work out well," one legal expert said in response to the leaked DOJ plan.
The US Department of Justice is reportedly setting up a new program that would create a team of prosecutors who can parachute into different areas throughout the country to bring charges against protesters who have allegedly assaulted or obstructed law enforcement officers.
As reported by Bloomberg on Tuesday, a Department of Justice (DOJ) memo mandates that US attorney's offices designate some of their staff members to serve on "emergency jump teams" that can surge into areas on short notice to prosecute cases.
"A senior official instructed leaders of the nation's 93 US attorney’s offices... that they have until February 6 to designate one or two assistant US attorneys," reported Bloomberg, "who’d be available for short-term surges in unspecified areas needing 'urgent assistance due to emergent or critical situations.'"
The effort to create "jump teams" of lawyers comes as the US Attorney's Office in Minnesota has been hit with a wave of resignations in the wake of the federal government's surge of federal immigration enforcement agents into the state.
According to a Monday report from the Minnesota Star Tribune, 14 lawyers at the Minnesota US Attorney's Office have either already resigned or announced their intention to resign in just the last month, an unprecedented number of departures in such a short period of time.
Bloomberg writes that the "jump team" plan "signals the Trump administration’s attempt to offset career prosecutor attrition... with a nationwide pool of reinforcements on standby."
The plan was potentially telegraphed by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Saturday, when he put out a call on social media for more attorneys to come work for the Trump administration.
"If you want to combat fraud, crime and illegal immigration, reach out," Miller wrote. "Patriots needed."
Attorney Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, speculated on Sunday that Miller's call reflected "real internal problems" at the DOJ, and he predicted that one solution the administration could try would be to create a mobile legal strike force much like the one outlined in the leaked DOJ memo.
However, White argued that this approach would be far from a magic bullet to solve the administration's staffing woes.
"The impediments will be these: They will get dregs who will do a bad job," White wrote. "Federal prosecution is not rocket science but federal judges do have notably higher standards than state judges and if you MAGA your way around federal court you will get your ass handed to you."
Jonathan Booth, a law professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, also predicted that the administration's strike force plan would run into some major speed bumps.
"Imagine, you're a federal prosecutor in San Diego," he wrote in a social media post. "It's sunny, warm, you have a whole set of important cases. Then suddenly 'we need you to go to Buffalo and prosecute extremely weak misdemeanor cases.' Feel like this isn't gonna work out well."
"Trump gets paid. Taxpayers get screwed," said one congressman.
The $40 million film Melania, a biography of the first lady that was purchased by Amazon, has been panned as a "bribe disguised as a documentary," an "expensive propaganda doc," and a "journey into the void."
But despite the reviews, the tech firm has poured an unprecedented $35 million into a marketing campaign for the documentary, and one government watchdog group suggested Monday that the investment by the third-richest person in the world, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, is already paying off.
Bezos welcomed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to his Blue Origin facilities in Florida on Monday as part of Hegseth's "Arsenal of Freedom" speaking tour, which is aimed at overhauling the Pentagon's relationship with defense tech companies.
"Blue Origin is committed to supporting national security to, through, and from space," said Bezos at the event.
Speaking during Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s “Arsenal of Freedom” tour at Cape Canaveral, Jeff Bezos says U.S. national security now hinges on industrial speed, scale, and space-based capability.
READ MORE: https://t.co/cOUQii31TJ#amazon #jeffbezos #nationalnews #florida pic.twitter.com/uaFGaoMhnI
— KRCR News Channel 7 (@KRCR7) February 3, 2026
Blue Origin, Bezos' space exploration firm, has received billions of dollars in defense contracts to build technology that uses space lasers, nuclear-powered spacecraft, and a processing facility for satellites.
Hegseth said during his tour that Blue Origin is likely to do "plenty of winning" as the Pentagon hands out additional contracts.
Late last month, Amazon Web Services was also awarded a $581 million contract to support the US Air Force's Cloud One program.
Greg Williams, director of the Project on Government Oversight's Center for Defense Information, told USA Today that on its face, Hegseth's visits to Blue Origin as well as SpaceX, the space technology firm owned by Trump administration associate and Republican megadonor Elon Musk, were not "particularly novel."
But considering Bezos' purchase and promotion of the documentary spotlighting President Donald Trump's wife, said Williams, Hegseth's hobnobbing with the tech mogul raises new questions about Bezos' desire to curry favor with the White House.
"By spending a tiny amount of money to buy the rights," said Williams, Bezos "potentially gets a much larger return."
As such, Hegseth's visit to Blue Origin called attention to a situation of "unprecedented conflict of interest," Williams added.
US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) summarized the apparent transaction involving the documentary rights and the government contracts: "Trump gets paid. Taxpayers get screwed."
One expert said that "this is exactly the kind of miscalculation—or intentional escalation, by hawkish bureaucrats aiming to scuttle talks—that can drag us into" war.
Amid recent reports that war is "imminent," the US military shot down an Iranian drone on Tuesday as it approached the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea, according to a US official who spoke with Reuters.
Central Command spokesperson Capt. Tim Hawkins told the Associated Press that the drone “aggressively approached” the Lincoln with “unclear intent," and kept flying toward the aircraft carrier “despite de-escalatory measures taken by US forces operating in international waters."
It came after another tense encounter earlier in the day, during which the US military said Iranian forces "harassed" a US merchant vessel sailing in the Strait of Hormuz.
The Lincoln is part of an "armada" that President Donald Trump on Friday said he'd deployed to the region in advance of a possible strike against Iran, which he said would be "far worse" than the one the US conducted in June, when it bombed three Iranian nuclear sites.
After initially stating his goal of protecting protesters from a government crackdown, Trump has pivoted to express his intentions of using the threat of military force to coerce Iran into negotiating a new nuclear agreement that would severely limit its ability to pursue nuclear enrichment, which it has the right to do for peaceful means.
"Shifting justifications for a war are never a good sign, and they strongly suggest that the war in question was not warranted," Paul R. Pillar, a nonresident senior fellow at the Center for Security Studies of Georgetown University, said in a piece published by Responsible Statecraft on Tuesday.
Other international relations scholars have said the US has no grounds, either strategically or legally, to pursue a war, even to stop Iran's nuclear development.
For one thing, said Dylan Williams, vice president of the Center for International Policy, Trump himself is responsible for ripping up the old agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which required Iran to limit its enrichment of uranium well below the levels required to build a nuclear weapon in exchange for relief from crippling US sanctions.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was tasked with regularly inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities, the country was cooperating with all aspects of the deal until Trump withdrew from it, after which Iran began to once again accelerate its nuclear enrichment.
"There was 24/7 monitoring and no [highly enriched uranium] in Iran before Trump broke the JCPOA," Williams said. "Iran’s missile program and human rights abuses surged after he broke the deal."
Daniel DePetris, a fellow at Defense Priorities, marveled that "there is an amazing amount of folks who still think bombing Iran's nuclear program every eight months or so is a better result for the United States than the JCPOA, which capped Tehran's nuclear progress by 15-20 years."
With the Lincoln ominously looming off his nation's shores, Iran's embattled supreme leader, the 86-year-old Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned on Sunday that "the Americans must be aware that if they wage a war this time, it will be a regional war."
Trump responded to the ayatollah by saying that if “we don’t make a deal, then we’ll find out whether or not he was right.”
Despite stating their unwillingness to give up their nuclear energy program, which they say is legal under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Iranian envoys have expressed an openness to a meeting with US diplomats mediated by other Middle Eastern nations in Turkey this week.
On Monday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian wrote on social media that he had instructed diplomats "to pursue fair and equitable negotiations, guided by the principles of dignity, prudence, and expediency."
Trump is also pushing other demands—including that Iran must also limit its long-range ballistic missile program and stop arming its allies in the region, such as the Palestinian militant group Hamas, the Lebanese group Hezbollah, and the Yemeni group Ansar Allah, often referred to as the "Houthis."
Pillar pointed out that Iran's missile program and its arming of so-called "proxies" have primarily been used as deterrents against other nations in the region—namely, US allies Israel and Saudi Arabia. With these demands, he said, "Iran is being told it cannot have a full regional policy while others do. It is unrealistic to expect any Iranian leader to agree to that."
That said, Pillar wrote that "President Trump is correct when he says that Iran wants a deal, given that Iran’s bad economic situation is an incentive to negotiate agreements that would provide at least partial relief from sanctions," which played a notable role in heightening the economic instability that fueled Iran's protests in the first place.
But any optimism that appeared to have arisen may have been dashed by Tuesday's exchange of fire. According to Axios, Iran is now asking to move the talks from Turkey to Oman and has called for a meeting with the US alone rather than with other nations present.
Eric Sperling, the executive director of Just Foreign Policy, said: "This is exactly the kind of miscalculation—or intentional escalation, by hawkish bureaucrats aiming to scuttle talks—that can drag us into an illegal and catastrophic war in Iran."