Check out this interview of Lisa Jackson, the Administrator of the EPA. It will spark rage. Trust me
Listen to the interview here:
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/09/03.php
* * *

Diane Rehm Show, National Public Radio
September 3, 2009

Susan Page, Guest Host

U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Guest

Kate Russell, Ohio Citizen Action, caller

KATE RUSSELL (16:06): My question is about mountaintop removal coal mining. Recently Dr. Margaret Palmer from the University of Maryland testified before the Senate on peer-reviewed scientific literature, a consensus, that humans cannot recreate what headwater streams provide for us, the function of the water, the structure of the water. My question is if we know that mountaintop removal and valley fills are so detrimental to our headwater streams, why is it allowed to continue?

SUSAN PAGE: Alright, Kate, thanks for your call. I’ll mention we’ve gotten any number of e-mails also on the issue of mountaintop removal. And I’m not sure that everyone understands exactly what the question is here. Tell us about what the controversy is on this.

ADMINISTRATOR JACKSON: Sure, and thanks, Kate, for the question. Mountaintop removal is a practice in Appalachia. There are thin seams of coal, and companies have come to the practice of using explosives to literally blow off the tops of mountain tops. It’s a surface mining, its surface extraction technique. It levels the top. They take the seams of coal, that’s the product they want, and then you have to do something with all that rock that’s left. That rock has been by practice and by regulation allowed to be put into valley fills and those valley fills are actually also the source of headwater streams. We all know water runs downhill so at the top of those mountains are the headwaters for drinking water and for the streams and rivers that run through Appalachia.

SUSAN PAGE: So, we’ve had e-mailers, and also Kate just on the air, asking about your position on mountaintop removal. What do you think should be done about it?

ADMINISTRATOR JACKSON: Sure, I’m happy to answer that. Let me first start by acknowledging that Kate’s right. At the hearing I was also proud of the fact that some of the science that’s out there is by EPA scientists. I think we had Dr. Randy Pomponio at the same hearing or at a similar hearing testifying about the work EPA has spearheaded along with academics looking at issues of conductivity and the effect of conductivity, and suspended solids on aquatic creatures. Sort of indicator species that begin to show us whether or not there’s stream degradation. And it is true that much of the science shows that when you have a lot of, when you start to see a preponderance of stream miles filled in, you start to see higher conductivity levels, which is indicative of higher suspended solids, which starts to effect the aquatic ecosystems sort of from the bottom up. And so activists and people who live in the area have raised concerns about why this practice had been allowed to continue. That’s because there were rules put forth under the Bush Administration that allowed, it was sort of a funny name, it was the stream buffer rule, but the buffer rule interpretation actually allowed no buffer between the stream and the fill. EPA has committed to reviewing projects. It’s been a contentious issue from the start, certainly in Appalachia. We are in the process of reviewing about 84 permits right now that were put on hold by litigation. And in the next few weeks we’re going to have to make a determination under the Clean Water Act as to whether those permits can meet the Clean Water Act standards or whether they should be held up and potentially ultimately vetoed. EPA has the authority to veto the permits. The permits themselves are issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. So EPA plays sort of an oversight role there.

SUSAN PAGE: Do you have a personal, I realize the U.S. EPA hasn’t made a decision yet, but do you personally have a view on this?

ADMINISTRATOR JACKSON: You know what? My personal views are absolutely irrelevant. I have a view that we should uphold science, the best science we can muster. That’s why I’m proud of the fact that the science that’s out there EPA had a role in trying to understand. And that our job is actually narrowly defined and it is about protection of water quality. There’s lots of other views about the practice itself, whether or not it’s good for the communities, whether or not it’s good for the workers. But all we can and should look at is whether or not the practice comports with the Clean Water Act whether it’s scientifically valid, whether it’s legal.

SUSAN PAGE: It sounds as if though this has changed, sort of, the landscape, perhaps, of some of West Virginia. Have you seen what happens when they do this process?

ADMINISTRATOR JACKSON: No, I have not yet seen it with my own eyes. I’ve certainly seen lots and lots of pictures. It is like much of what we came to know as strip mining. It is not a process that’s appealing to look at. What’s also important with any mining. I also visited Wyoming not too too long ago and saw sort of the equivalent in the Great Plains and there the seams of coal are much much much thicker and the restoration is something that the state takes very seriously. And so one of the issues is has also been, as Kate mentioned in her question, whether there is any way to really remake a mountaintop once you’ve changed the elevations and things like that.

* * *

You heard it. Jackson hasnt been to Appalachia, and it sounds like she really doesnt care. Its time to mobilize and write letters asking Lisa Jackson to visit. We need people who live in the coalfields to invite her down . We need to get into the schools in Southern WV and teach kids to write letters asking her to visit their home. Hand written letters via pencil by a 7th grader stays in people's heads. Lets do it. Build up the pressure at the EPA. Lets have more protests in DC, and remind them: EPA: DO YOUR JOB

Alright. We're all a team. Lets save the mountains.

Billy