U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–554 PDF 2017

DISCUSSION DRAFT OF H.R. _____, 

‘‘COMMUNITY RECLAMATION PARTNERSHIPS ACT’’ 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Wednesday, May 24, 2017 

Serial No. 115–8 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Chairman Emeritus 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Vice Chairman 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Stevan Pearce, NM 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Daniel Webster, FL 

David Rouzer, NC 

Jack Bergman, MI 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Mike Johnson, LA 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Vice Ranking Member 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Colleen Hanabusa, HI 

Nanette Diaz Barraga ́n, CA 

Darren Soto, FL 

Jimmy Panetta, CA 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jason Knox, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

PAUL A. GOSAR, AZ, Chairman 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, CA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Stevan Pearce, NM 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul Cook, CA 

Vice Chairman 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

Jim Costa, CA 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Darren Soto, FL 

Nanette Diaz Barraga ́n, CA 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, May 24, 2017 .......................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona ........................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Lowenthal, Hon. Alan S., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Kay, Thom, Senior Legislative Representative, Appalachian Voices, 

Boone, North Carolina .................................................................................. 12 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Stefanko, John, Deputy Secretary for the Office of Active and Abandoned 

Mine Operations, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on behalf of the Interstate Mining 

Compact Commission and National Association of Abandoned Mine 

Land Programs .............................................................................................. 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 24 

Wood, Chris, President/Chief Executive Officer, Trout Unlimited, 

Arlington, Virginia ........................................................................................ 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON DISCUSSION 

DRAFT OF H.R. _____, TO AMEND THE 

SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 TO AUTHORIZE 

PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN STATES AND 

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES FOR THE 

PURPOSE OF RECLAIMING AND RESTORING 

LAND AND WATER RESOURCES ADVERSELY 

AFFECTED BY COAL MINING ACTIVITIES 

BEFORE AUGUST 3, 1977, AND OTHER 

PURPOSES, ‘‘COMMUNITY RECLAMATION 

PARTNERSHIPS ACT’’ 

Wednesday, May 24, 2017 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:12 p.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gosar, Pearce, Thompson, Tipton, 

Westerman, Hice, LaHood; Lowenthal, Beyer, and Barragan. 

Dr. GOSAR. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the discussion draft of the Community Reclamation 

Partnerships Act. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at the 

hearing are limited to the Chairman, the Ranking Minority 

Member, and the Vice Chair. This will allow us to hear from our 

witnesses sooner, and help Members keep to their schedules. 

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members’ opening statements be made part of the hearing record, if they are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00 p.m. today. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Dr. GOSAR. Today the Subcommittee will consider our discussion 

draft of the Community Reclamation Partnerships Act. This bill 

would amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977, or SMCRA, to enable states to partner with nongovernmental entities to reclaim abandoned mine sites and facilitate acid mine drainage cleanup across the country. 

2 

Currently, state reclamation activities are funded solely by fees 

levied on the coal industry. These fees have resulted in the 

reclamation of approximately $4 billion of abandoned mine land, or 

AML, liabilities. 

However, according to the Department of the Interior, over 6,650 

AML sites remain, with an estimated remediation cost exceeding 

$10.5 billion. These abandoned mines pose threats to the 

surrounding communities, and prohibit opportunities for further 

development. 

Because these sites were abandoned before the era of modern 

regulation and there are no current liable parties, the states are responsible for reclaiming these sites and restoring the environmental quality of the surrounding areas. The cost of reclaiming 

these sites will continue to strain state resources in the coming 

decades, and the condition of these sites will only worsen over time. 

Non-government entities have recognized the need for reclamation in coal communities and are willing to contribute their 

resources and expertise to address the problem. Unfortunately, 

liability and regulatory concerns have discouraged them from 

partnering with states on reclamation projects. This legislation will 

enable NGO participation in state reclamation programs by minimizing undeserved liability and codifying proven practices established by the state reclamation agencies. 

This legislation would recognize non-governmental entities who 

wish to conduct reclamation projects, including watershed groups, 

conservation organizations, and industry partners, as ‘‘Community 

Reclaimers.’’ It will allow the state to extend liability protection to 

these entities, much like they already do for their approved 

reclamation contractors. 

This legislation also addresses common problems that states experience in addressing water pollution at AML sites. One of the 

most challenging aspects of mine reclamation is the treatment of 

acid mine drainage discharges. Currently, states are required to 

fully comply with the Clean Water Act when treating water at 

AML sites. While the water quality at AML sites can be improved, 

it will never reach Clean Water Act standards, even with the best 

water treatment systems in place. As a result, states must choose 

between risking non-compliance under the Clean Water Act, or 

foregoing acid mine drainage abatement projects all together. 

Some states have addressed this problem by establishing their 

own guidelines for the treatment of water pollution at AML sites. 

These state-specific strategies have resulted in successful water 

treatment projects and a significant reduction in acid mine drainage in several states. 

However, these states risk subjecting their programs to suit, due 

to the lack of any statutory authorization for their water treatment 

programs. This legislation would statutorily recognize the practice 

of crafting acid mine drainage treatment strategies in each state. 

These strategies must be laid out in the form of a Memorandum 

of Understanding between the relevant state and Federal agencies 

and approved by the EPA and Department of the Interior. Community Reclaimers will be able to execute acid mine drainage projects 

consistent with the approved MOUs in each state. 

3 

I would like to note that this legislation does not allow for remining in conjunction with Community Reclaimer projects. SMCRA 

already allows for the regulation of re-mining activities, and this 

legislation does not in any way amend the existing requirements. 

Should mining companies choose to serve as Community 

Reclaimers, they will not be able to conduct mining activity in the 

course of completing a reclamation project, and they must not have 

any outstanding SMCRA violations. 

Today, we will hear from Mr. Stefanko, Deputy Secretary for the 

Office of Active and Abandoned Mine Operations at Pennsylvania’s 

Department of Environmental Protection. In his role, Mr. Stefanko 

is responsible for overseeing the state’s Abandoned Mine 

Reclamation Program. He will discuss his program’s experience 

with allowing non-governmental entities to reclaim AML sites, current challenges in cleaning up acid mine drainage, and the need for 

Community Reclaimers in states like Pennsylvania. 

We will also hear from Mr. Chris Wood, President and CEO of 

Trout Unlimited. Trout Unlimited is a national organization dedicated to conservation and fisheries restoration that has partnered 

with several states on abandoned mine land projects. Mr. Wood 

will discuss the ability of non-governmental entities like Trout 

Unlimited to serve as Community Reclaimers, and the environmental benefits that these partnerships will yield for communities 

nationwide. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

Today, the Subcommittee will consider a discussion draft of the Community 

Reclamation Partnerships Act. This bill would amend the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) to enable states to partner with nongovernmental entities to reclaim abandoned mine sites and facilitate acid mine 

drainage cleanup across the country. 

Currently, state reclamation activities are funded solely by fees levied on the coal 

industry. These fees have resulted in the reclamation of approximately $4 billion of 

abandoned mine land, or AML, liabilities. However, according to the Department of 

the Interior, over 6,650 AML sites remain with estimated remediation costs exceeding $10.5 billion. These abandoned mines pose threats to the surrounding communities and prohibit opportunities for further development. Because these sites were 

abandoned before the era of modern regulation and there are no current liable 

parties, the states are responsible for reclaiming these sites and restoring the environmental quality of the surrounding areas. The cost of reclaiming these sites will 

continue to strain state resources in the coming decades and the conditions of these 

sites will only worsen over time. 

Non-governmental entities have recognized the need for reclamation in coal communities and are willing to contribute their resources and expertise to address the 

problem. Unfortunately, liability and regulatory concerns have discouraged them 

from partnering with the states on reclamation projects. This legislation will enable 

NGO participation in state reclamation programs by minimizing undeserved liability and codifying proven practices established by the state reclamation agencies. 

This legislation would recognize non-governmental entities who wish to conduct 

reclamation projects, including watershed groups, conservation organizations and 

industry partners, as ‘‘Community Reclaimers.’’ It will allow the state to extend liability protection to these entities, much like they already do for their approved 

reclamation contractors. 

This legislation also addresses common problems that states experience in addressing water pollution at AML sites. One of the most challenging aspects of mine 

reclamation is the treatment of acid mine drainage discharges. Currently, states are 

required to fully comply with the Clean Water Act when treating water at AML 

sites. While the water quality at AML sites can be improved, it will never reach 

4 

Clean Water Act standards, even with the best water treatment systems in place. 

As a result, states must choose between risking noncompliance under the Clean 

Water Act or foregoing acid mine drainage abatement projects altogether. 

Some states have addressed this problem by establishing their own guidelines for 

the treatment of water pollution at AML sites. These state-specific strategies have 

resulted in successful water treatment projects and a significant reduction in acid 

mine drainage in several states. However, these states risk subjecting their 

programs to suit due to the lack of any statutory authorization for their water treatment programs. This legislation would statutorily recognize the practice of crafting 

acid mine drainage treatment strategies in each state. These strategies must be laid 

out in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding between the relevant state and 

Federal agencies and approved by the EPA and Department of the Interior. 

Community Reclaimers will be able to execute acid mine drainage projects consistent with the approved MOUs in each state. 

I would like to note that this legislation does not allow for re-mining in conjunction with Community Reclaimer projects. SMCRA already allows for the regulation 

of re-mining activities and this legislation does not in any way amend the existing 

requirements. Should mining companies choose to serve as Community Reclaimers, 

they will not be able to conduct mining activity in the course of completing a 

reclamation project, and they must not have any outstanding SMCRA violations. 

Today, we will hear from Mr. John Stefanko, Deputy Secretary for the Office of 

Active and Abandoned Mine Operations at the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection. In his role, Mr. Stefanko is responsible for overseeing the 

States’ Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program. He will discuss his program’s experience with allowing non-governmental entities to reclaim AML sites, current challenges in cleaning up acid mine drainage, and the need for Community Reclaimers 

in states like Pennsylvania. 

We will also hear from Mr. Chris Wood, President and CEO of Trout Unlimited. 

Trout Unlimited is a national organization dedicated to conservation and fisheries 

restoration that has partnered with several states on abandoned mine land projects. 

Mr. Wood will discuss the ability of non-governmental entities like Trout Unlimited 

to serve as Community Reclaimers and the environmental benefits that these partnerships will yield for communities nationwide. 

Dr. GOSAR. The Chairman now recognizes the Ranking Member 

for any statement. The gentleman from California is recognized. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The draft of the bill 

before us today is an interesting and potentially promising tool to 

help address one of the big questions that confronts the issue of 

cleaning up abandoned mines. Namely, how can we allow Good 

Samaritans—people who had nothing to do with causing the pollution—how can we allow them to help with cleaning up these sites? 

There is no question that help is needed. Reclaiming all of the 

remaining abandoned coal mines in this country would cost an estimated $10 billion. 

Reclaiming our abandoned hardrock mines would be even more 

expensive, with an estimated cost of anywhere from $20 to 

$54 billion. The Gold King Mine incident was just the most visible 

example of why this immense responsibility needs to be taken on 

in a serious way, and it needs to be done soon. 

Volunteers, whether we call them Good Samaritans, Community 

Reclaimers, or anything else, will simply not be enough to tackle 

this problem. 

Coal companies, at least, chip in to the Abandoned Mine Land 

Fund to help address the legacy of centuries of unreclaimed coal 

5 

mines. Unfortunately, hardrock mining companies do not 

contribute to help cover the enormous cost of cleaning up their own 

legacy of pollution, which are the over half-million abandoned gold, 

silver, copper, and other mines that each day poison rivers and 

streams throughout the country with millions of gallons of toxic 

water containing lead, arsenic, cadmium, and other metals. 

The hardrock mining industry has also continually fought efforts 

to hold them accountable for these sites. That needs to change. 

Last Congress, Ranking Member Grijalva and I introduced the 

Hardrock Mining Reform and Reclamation Act, which, among other 

things, would require the hardrock mining industry to pony up and 

pitch in like the coal industry has done. Frankly, that is the only 

way we are going to make a significant dent in this problem. 

Particularly, I raise this, since the Administration has now decided that cleaning up abandoned hardrock mines is not a priority. 

The President has proposed a cut of nearly $11 million for the 

Bureau of Land Management’s Abandoned Mine Lands Program, 

more than half—and I repeat that, more than half—of the budget 

of that already underfunded program. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that this is an issue that we can look at 

in more depth this Congress. As for the bill we are discussing 

today, this is a novel approach to addressing the Good Samaritan 

issue, and I thank Mr. LaHood for proposing it, and you, the Chairman, for holding a hearing on it. Having Community Reclaimers 

partner with states under their abandoned mine land programs 

could potentially provide the liability protections that these Good 

Samaritans need to undertake in a number of helpful projects. 

However, I don’t believe it is entirely clear how this bill would 

work. It appears that the bill would provide a broad waiver for 

projects that do not meet Clean Water Act standards if there is a 

Memorandum of Understanding between the state and the Federal 

Government. Unfortunately, there is very little detail in the bill 

about what these memoranda would contain. The only requirement 

seems to be that the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency find that a memorandum would help facilitate additional work under the state’s 

Abandoned Coal Mine Reclamation Plan. 

But there are a lot of ways that we could do that. And it is not 

clear if there are protections to keep coal companies from using 

this as a way to re-mine old sites without having to comply with 

the Clean Water Act. 

I understand that is not the intent of this bill, so I hope we can 

work together, guided by some of the comments of the testimony 

provided by our witnesses today, to craft something that is bipartisan and that can have a real and lasting positive impact. 

Thank you to the witnesses for being here, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lowenthal follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The draft of the bill before us today is an interesting and potentially promising 

tool to help address one of the big questions that confronts the issue of cleaning up 

abandoned mines. Namely, how can we allow Good Samaritans—people who had 

6 

nothing to do with causing the pollution—how can we allow them to help with 

cleaning up these sites? 

There is no question that help is needed. Reclaiming all of the remaining 

abandoned coal mines in this country would cost an estimated $10 billion. 

Reclaiming our abandoned hardrock mines would be even more expensive, with 

an estimated cost of anywhere from $20 to $54 billion. The Gold King Mine incident 

was just the most visible example of why this immense responsibility needs to be 

taken on in a serious way, and it needs to be done soon. 

Volunteers, whether we call them Good Samaritans, Community Reclaimers, or 

anything else, will simply not be enough to tackle this problem. 

Coal companies, at least, chip in to the Abandoned Mine Land fund to help address the legacy of centuries of unreclaimed coal mines. Unfortunately, hardrock 

mining companies do not contribute to help cover the enormous cost of cleaning up 

their own legacy of pollution, which are the over half-million abandoned gold, silver, 

copper, and other mines that each day poison rivers and streams throughout the 

country with millions of gallons of toxic water containing lead, arsenic, cadmium, 

and other metals. 

The hardrock mining industry has also continually fought efforts to hold them 

accountable for these sites. That needs to change. 

Last Congress, Ranking Member Grijalva and I introduced the Hardrock Mining 

Reform and Reclamation Act, which among other things would require the hardrock 

mining industry to pony up and pitch in like the coal industry has done. Frankly, 

that is the only way that we will make a significant dent in this problem. 

Particularly since the Administration has decided that cleaning up abandoned 

hardrock mines isn’t a priority. The President has proposed a cut of nearly 

$11 million for the Bureau of Land Management’s Abandoned Mine Lands program, 

more than half of the budget of that already underfunded program. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that this is an issue that we can look at in more depth 

this Congress. As for the bill we are discussing today, this is a novel approach to 

addressing the Good Samaritan issue, and I thank Mr. LaHood for proposing it and 

the Chairman for holding a hearing on it. Having Community Reclaimers partner 

with states under their Abandoned Mine Land programs could potentially provide 

the liability protections that these Good Samaritans need to undertake a number 

of helpful projects. 

However, I don’t believe it is entirely clear how this bill would work. It appears 

that the bill would provide a broad waiver for projects that don’t meet Clean Water 

Act standards if there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the state and 

the Federal Government. Unfortunately, there is very little detail in the bill about 

what these memoranda would contain. The only requirement seems to be that the 

Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency find that a memorandum would help facilitate additional work under the 

State’s Abandoned Coal Mine Reclamation Plan. 

But there are a lot of ways that you could do that. And it’s not clear if there are 

protections to keep coal companies from using this as a way to re-mine old sites 

without having to comply with the Clean Water Act. 

I understand that isn’t the intent of this bill, so I hope we can work together, 

guided by some of the comments in the testimony provided by our witnesses today, 

to craft something that is bipartisan and can have a real and lasting positive 

impact. 

Thank you to the witnesses for being here, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. Now I will introduce our 

witnesses. 

First, Mr. Chris Wood, President and Chief Executive Officer for 

Trout Unlimited. 

Mr. Thom Kay, Senior Legislative Representative for 

Appalachian Voices. 

And third, Mr. John Stefanko, Deputy Secretary for the Office of 

Active and Abandoned Mine Operations, Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Protection. 

7 

Let me remind the witnesses that, under our Committee Rules, 

they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes. But their entire 

statement will appear in the hearing record. 

Our microphones are not automatic. You will need to press the 

talk button when you begin your testimony. When you begin, the 

light on the witness microphone will turn green, and after 

4 minutes will turn yellow, subsequently followed by the red light. 

Summarize your statements from there on, and hopefully keep it 

to that aspect. 

I would like to now recognize Mr. Wood for his testimony. 

Good seeing you again, Chris. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS WOOD, PRESIDENT/CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, TROUT UNLIMITED, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member 

Lowenthal, and Subcommittee members. My testimony is on behalf 

of Trout Unlimited and our 300,000 members and supporters 

around the country. I want to thank you for inviting us to be here 

today. 

TU’s mission is to conserve, protect, and restore trout and 

salmon fisheries and the watersheds that they depend on. I have 

often referred to TU as the patron saint of forgotten environmental 

causes. And our work to clean up abandoned mines, whether they 

are in the coal fields of Appalachia or hardrock mining lands in the 

Rocky Mountains, is a testament of that. 

[Slide] 

Mr. WOOD. As you can see from this map that is on the screen 

here, abandoned coal mines are a pervasive problem all across the 

country, not just in Appalachia. 

Next slide, please. 

[Slide] 

Mr. WOOD. The Gold King spill in Colorado several years ago 

made national news. But the stream on the left is a typical representation, and it is all too familiar from any landowners across 

Appalachia and the rest of the country. These yellow streams and 

red streams occur outside of the media’s view, but all around the 

country. 

Cleaning up these mines is pretty straightforward. As the picture 

on the upper right shows, you can run them through these passive 

treatment systems and constructed wetlands, and the result is that 

you can recover native species such as the brook trout, down in the 

lower-right corner. We are quite proud of the fact that in 

Pennsylvania, because of our work on a watershed called Kettle 

Creek, we were able to recover over 6 miles of spawning and 

rearing habitat for brook trout that had been lost for over a 

century to abandoned mine waste. 

Next slide, please. 

[Slide] 

Mr. WOOD. This map shows what is possible. Kettle Creek, that 

I just mentioned, is a small part of the West Branch of the 

Susquehanna watershed, which drains about 20 percent of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The line in red represents the 

river from the 1980s. If you can’t read the chart, essentially the 

entire river was acidic to one degree or another. 

8 

Today, that is not the case. You can see the progress that has 

been made over the past decades as a result of the partnership between the state, dozens of watershed groups, and organizations like 

Trout Unlimited. 

Much, much more work remains to be done, in spite of the success that we have had on the West Branch. In the West Branch 

alone, we have over 1,000 miles of acidic streams that need to be 

treated. These are particularly important for brook trout. And we 

have over 5,000 miles in the rest of the Commonwealth that are 

also in need of treatment. 

Next slide, please. 

[Slide] 

Mr. WOOD. This work not only cleans our water, it provides thousands of high-paying, family wage jobs in rural areas. And, of 

course, it makes the fishing better, which, in turn, drives a significant recreation economy, which everyone benefits from. 

We are very grateful, Representative LaHood and Chairman 

Gosar, for your continued leadership on this issue, and we appreciate the willingness of the authors to allow for some discussion of 

this bill. These deliberations, we think, will lead to strong bipartisan support for a very, very good draft. 

This draft is a significant step in the right direction. It must 

work well on the ground, of course, and we are looking forward to 

having a little bit of time to give you more detailed comments from 

our practitioners in the field. We will offer some additional feedback in the coming days, but we are quite confident that the finished, introduced bill will be worthy of the Subcommittee’s strong 

consideration and eventual approval. 

Just three points that we would like to highlight here for the 

balance of my time. 

Number one, we think the bill should consider some process for 

grandfathering some of the 250 projects that are already ongoing 

in the state of Pennsylvania through the MOU process. 

Number two, we would like to ensure that there is strong public 

involvement in the development of these MOUs. We think that consent of the people in these areas is really important to getting good, 

solid projects. 

And then, finally, we would like to see qualifying private landowners eligible to become Community Reclaimers in their own 

right. It was unclear from the draft if that is intended. 

Improving the Nation’s water quality is a goal that every 

American shares. We are pleased that the Subcommittee is looking 

at one of the more vexing water quality problems in the country 

right now, and we stand ready to work with you to promote clean 

and fishable waters across the country. 

Thank you for considering our views, and thank you for working 

on these most important matters. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRIS WOOD, PRESIDENT/CEO OF TROUT UNLIMITED, 

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA

Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Lowenthal, and Subcommittee Members: my 

name is Chris Wood. I am the President and CEO of Trout Unlimited. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today on abandoned coal mine cleanup legislation. 

9 

1http://pa.water.usgs.gov/projects/energy/amd/. 

I offer the following testimony on behalf of Trout Unlimited and its nearly 300,000 

members and supporters nationwide. My testimony will focus on the Discussion 

Draft (Draft Bill), cleanup of abandoned coal mine lands and water, and specifically 

the need to facilitate abandoned coal mine cleanups by Community Reclaimers (also 

often known as ‘‘Good Samaritans’’)—those individuals or entities who have no legal 

obligation to take on an abandoned mine cleanup, but who wish to do so in order 

to improve water quality and watershed health. 

We deeply appreciate the Subcommittee’s focus on this issue, and we urge the 

Subcommittee to continue to work with us, the states, the Interior Department, the 

EPA, and other stakeholders on such a bill to help provide an important tool to 

facilitate cleanups. 

TU’s mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America’s trout and salmon 

fisheries and the watersheds they depend on. In pursuit of this mission, TU has 

worked to restore streams and rivers damaged by pollution from abandoned mines 

from the Appalachian coalfields in Pennsylvania to the hardrock mining areas of the 

Rocky Mountain states, and my testimony is based upon these experiences. TU 

stands ready to expand our work to clean up abandoned mine pollution, and we 

need such legislation to make it happen. 

We are grateful for the Draft Bill, and the leadership of its authors, Representative LaHood and Chairman Gosar. It is a thoughtful approach and a workable, new 

model. We appreciate the willingness of the authors to allow for ample discussion 

of the draft. We hope that the deliberations will lead to strong, bipartisan support 

for the bill. 

There is room for improvement in some areas, but we regard the draft as a significant step that is headed in the right direction. It must work well on the ground, 

of course, and as our field practitioners are studying the Draft Bill, we will offer 

additional feedback in the coming days. We are confident that the finished, introduced bill will be worthy of the Subcommittee’s strong consideration and eventual 

approval. 

ABANDONED MINE POLLUTION IS A WIDESPREAD PROBLEM BUT MUCH OF IT IS FIXABLE

Americans want clean water. Trout Unlimited members give substantial amounts 

of their time and treasures to protecting and restoring trout watersheds. But even 

a cursory look at the damages to our streams, rivers and groundwater caused by 

pollution from abandoned coal and hardrock mines show that we have a long way 

to go to achieve clean water for all. There is no better time than right now, as the 

new Trump administration and the 115th Congress discuss including water cleanup 

work as part of an infrastructure package, to address clean up of pollution from 

abandoned coal mine. 

Sadly, much of abandoned mine pollution is ‘‘out of sight, out of mind.’’ But in 

August 2015, we received a vivid view of the mess. The 3-million gallons spill of 

polluted water from the Gold King mine near Silverton, Colorado showed the world 

what TU members and staff who live in mining country see every day: Orange, 

polluted water leaking out from abandoned mines. 

Cleaning up abandoned mines is challenging and expensive. That does not make 

it any less imperative. The legacy of historical mining practices—thousands of abandoned coal and hardrock mines with an estimated cleanup cost in the billions of 

dollars—has persisted for the better part of a century with insufficient progress toward a solution. 

Abandoned coal mines dot the Appalachian landscape. Pollution from abandoned 

coal mines continues to damage thousands of miles of streams and rivers—over 

10,000 miles just within Pennsylvania and West Virginia—and while much has been 

accomplished through the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act’s (SMCRA) 

extremely valuable Abandoned Mine Lands Fund (AML Fund), a great deal more 

remains to be done. The cost of cleanup in Pennsylvania alone has been estimated 

as high as $15 billion.1

A reclamation fee, paid by the mining companies, is collected for each ton of coal 

produced to support the AML Fund. Since 1977, more than $10.5 billion has been 

put to good use making safe and cleaning up abandoned coal mines. 

We have developed a number of model projects that can be easily replicated. In 

Pennsylvania, aided by state-based Good Samaritan policy, watershed groups, 

including Trout Unlimited, are working with state agencies, communities, and other 

partners to conduct more than 250 abandoned coal mine pollution projects throughout the state. We can do lot more if the problem is fixed. 

10 

OUR BEST ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, THE CLEAN WATER ACT, CAN BE A BARRIER TO

ABANDONED COAL MINE CLEANUP

There are many projects where water quality could be improved by collecting runoff, or taking an existing discrete discharge, and running the polluted water through 

a treatment system. However, for would-be Community Reclaimers, Clean Water 

Act (CWA) compliance and liability issues remain a barrier to such projects. Several 

courts have held that discharges from systems that treat wastewater from abandoned mines are point source discharges that require a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under section 402 of the CWA. 

Although EPA and some eastern states have not considered such projects to be point 

sources requiring NPDES permits, the Fourth Circuit’s 2010 decision in 

West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. Huffman creates some uncertainty 

around that approach. 

Stakeholders in projects involving treatment of mine drainage have been held 

back because of CWA liability for two reasons. First, NGOs, including TU, are not 

well suited to apply for and hold permits for such projects. TU does not have an 

adequate funding mechanism to legally bind itself to pay for the perpetual costs 

associated with operating a water-treatment facility and permit compliance. 

Second, for many projects it may be impossible to obtain a permit, because the 

treatment systems, even if they will improve conditions, may not be able to treat 

abandoned mine wastewater to a level that meets all applicable water quality standards or other applicable criteria. It should be noted that while these treatment 

systems are certainly capable of producing water that will support a healthy fishery, 

the resulting water quality might not meet CWA standards for some pollutants that 

are particularly difficult to remove from mine waste (for example, passive wetland 

systems that effectively treat highly polluted water often leave levels of manganese 

that do not comply with CWA standards). 

This is not to say that CWA standards should be weakened; just the opposite, in 

fact. But there should be incentives for would-be Community Reclaimers to make 

water cleaner even if still short of full CWA standards. Put another way, Federal 

law should provide incentives for would be Good Samaritans to make our water 

cleaner and communities safer. 

GOOD PROJECTS COULD BE EXPANDED AND REPLICATED WITH EFFECTIVE GOOD

SAMARITAN POLICY FOR COAL

In Pennsylvania, as we explain below, polluted water is being successfully treated 

and streams and rivers are being brought back to life because the Commonwealth 

has provided Good Samaritans with dedicated funding. We believe that we can 

export the Pennsylvania model across the rest of the country if liability concerns are 

eased. 

Kettle Creek, Pennsylvania. Our experiences in Pennsylvania are illustrative of 

the positive effect of Good Samaritan cleanups Over the past 20 years, Pennsylvania 

has seen an increase in abandoned mine reclamation projects by watershed groups, 

including TU. This boom has been fueled by funding from the state’s Growing 

Greener grant program and the Federal Abandoned Mine Land (AML) reclamation 

fund. Most of these projects involve treatment of acid mine drainage using passive 

treatment systems, which run the polluted mine drainage through a series of limestone basins and wetlands that increase the water’s pH and cause heavy metals to 

precipitate out. These projects have significantly improved water quality and 

restored fish populations in numerous Pennsylvania streams. 

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection estimates that public 

funding sources have paid for the construction of nearly 250 passive treatment 

systems in the state, the majority of which have been constructed by private watershed groups, conservation districts or other local groups. 

Beginning in 1998, the work of TU and its partners in the lower Kettle Creek 

watershed has resulted in the reclamation of approximately 160 acres of scarred 

abandoned mine lands and installation of nine treatment systems that successfully 

improved mine water polluted with high levels of acidity and metals. The results 

to date have been tremendous, with water quality restored to 3 miles of previously 

dead streams and 6 miles of a fully reconnected and thriving native brook trout 

population. 

This story of recovery plays out again and again in individual streams and watersheds. Several years ago, the Babb Creek Watershed Association accomplished 

delisting 14 miles of Babb Creek, now a wild trout fishery, from EPA’s impaired 

streams list. Another 14 miles in the Tangascootack Creek watershed is pending removal from the impaired streams list as a result of passive treatment systems 

constructed by the Clinton County Conservation District. 

11 

On a much larger scale, the West Branch Susquehanna River watershed has 

made tremendous strides over the past few decades. A comparison of conditions in 

the West Branch Susquehanna in 1972 with those in 2009 indicated that fish 

species increased 3,000 percent, and pH increased from 3.8 to 6.6. 

These improvements result in economic benefits. In Pennsylvania, almost 

$4 billion was spent on fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing in 2006. A 2008 study 

found that full remediation of the West Branch Susquehanna River watershed 

would result in ‘‘an additional $22.3 million in sport fishing revenues could be expected to be generated each year. Additional recreation spending—over and above 

that for fishing—would be expected after remediation is completed.’’ 

Regardless of the overall scope of the abandoned mine problem, each of these 

projects restored a significant water body and represents a big win for the local 

community. 

ASSESSMENT OF THE DRAFT BILL

1. Positive Features of the Draft Bill 

• Houses the program within SMCRA and the existing AML cleanup program. 

This will ensure that many of the positive features of current AML programs 

will be retained. 

• The Clean Water Act liability protection mechanism for Community 

Reclaimers is narrowly tailored, is located within SMCRA, and relies on our 

state partners. 

• Allows eligible states to enter into abandoned mine pollution clean up MOUs 

with Interior through the current AML program, to be approved by Interior 

and EPA, to ensure that water pollution cleanup results in a significant 

improvement to the environment. 

2. Sections of the Draft where clarifications or improvements should be considered 

• The bill should ensure that ongoing, well functioning projects should not have 

to go through the bill’s approval process if the states, through the MOU 

mechanism, certify that the existing projects are being implemented effectively and are improving water quality as planned. As we mentioned, some 

250 projects are currently functioning well in Pennsylvania, and thus they 

should be smoothly embedded in the new program with minimal additional 

review. 

• The bill language should clarify that adequate public notice and comment is 

available for the draft MOUs from each state, and for each project. 

• The bill should clarify that private landowners who are not responsible for 

abandoned mine cleanup on their lands, but who are willing to work cooperatively with the Community Reclaimer and the state to clean up pollution from 

abandoned mines on their land, should also receive liability protection from 

the bill over the life of the project. 

Cleanup of abandoned coal mine pollution is a long-term job, and long-term 

funding is needed to get the job done. Thus, Congress needs to start work on reauthorizing Title IV AML for coal. The AML fund is the lifeblood of funding for abandoned coal mine work in the coalfield areas of America, especially the East. 

Congress passed a very useful 15-year reauthorization for the AML fund in 2006. 

Trout Unlimited and other stakeholders urge Congress to get started on the task 

of reauthorization now to ensure a smooth reauthorization is achieved by 2021. Such 

a valuable, complex law is worth the effort needed to make sure the critical funding 

is maintained. 

Last, the Subcommittee knows well the need to have a hardrock Good Samaritan 

policy enacted to provide a critical tool for western abandoned mine cleanup. We appreciate the Subcommittee’s work in the last Congress to find the solution. Under 

Chairman Lamborn’s leadership, good progress was made. After the Committee 

passes this bill, we would like to see this Subcommittee take up the hardrock 

abandoned mine bookend. 

CONCLUSION

Improving water quality around the Nation is a fundamental goal of the work of 

this Subcommittee, and thus we are pleased that the Subcommittee is looking at 

one of the most vexing water problems remaining in coal country. We stand ready 

to work with you so that affected communities around the Nation will again have 

12 

clean, fishable waters. Thank you for considering our views, and thank you for 

working with us on these important matters. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Kay for his 5 minutes of 

testimony. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF THOM KAY, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, APPALACHIAN VOICES, BOONE, NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. KAY. Thank you, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member 

Lowenthal, and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to 

testify on the discussion draft of the Community Reclamation 

Partnerships Act. I am the Senior Legislative Representative for 

Appalachian Voices, an organization working to protect the land, 

air, and water of central and southern Appalachia for future generations, and to one day see the region upheld as a national model 

of a vibrant, just, and sustainable economy. 

Throughout Appalachia, there is an enormous need to restore 

former coal mine lands. Abandoned mine lands from before the passage of SMCRA and mines that have been bond-forfeited more recently put large burdens on state agencies and the public. State 

agencies work hard to treat existing problems, but they simply do 

not have the resources necessary to complete the reclamation of 

millions of acres of land and thousands of miles of streams anytime 

in the near future. 

Virginia, for example, has over $400 million in remaining AML 

costs, but only receives in the ballpark of $5 million per year in 

AML grants. In order to build wealth and prosperity in rural communities, clean water is absolutely essential. Additional resources 

are clearly needed for states to address decades worth of mining 

pollution. 

Cleaning up mine sites has both environmental and economic 

benefits, along with creating immediate reclamation jobs and drawing tourism to improving the land and protecting fish and wildlife. 

Cleaning up mining pollution can help improve the health of local 

communities. 

Appalachian communities have demonstrated growing excitement 

about the lasting benefits associated with mine reclamation. 

Between the AML pilot program and the progress of the RECLAIM 

Act, communities are envisioning new, long-term economic opportunities that can be combined with reclamation. Pairing such efforts 

with passage of the Community Reclamation Partnerships Act 

could result not only in more cleanup, but also spur innovative 

projects in coal communities. 

It is my understanding that the bill is intended to encourage organizations to take on some of the heavy burden of treating water 

pollution, while also preventing mining companies from escaping 

any of the responsibilities they have under current law. Most 

importantly to Appalachian Voices is that this bill does not allow 

companies to conduct any mining with any reduction in standard 

permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act or SMCRA. 

13 

In certain cases, incidental coal removal can reduce the overall 

cost of site reclamation. This should be allowed if reclamation 

leaves previously polluted streams cleaner than they were before, 

but we see no reason for any company to receive extra liability 

protection for re-mining. 

We do not believe there is an intention to allow companies to 

carry out re-mining projects under this bill; but, as changes are 

made through the legislative process, I urge the Committee to ensure no loopholes are created that would allow any company to 

abuse the liability waivers granted under this Act in order to obtain new surface mining permits at an AML site. 

Included in the bill’s definition of a Community Reclaimer are 

sensible restrictions that would prohibit companies with unfulfilled 

reclamation obligations or outstanding violations from qualifying. 

We agree with that decision, but defining such persons or companies can be quite difficult. In many instances, a parent company 

may own as many as several dozen subsidiary mining companies. 

For example, Alpha Natural Resources owns at least 22 coal 

companies currently registered with the West Virginia Secretary of 

State. These companies all list the same manager, organizer, and 

office address, yet the state of West Virginia routinely treats them 

as individual companies. We suggest updating the definition to ensure that no one can get around the sensible restrictions in the bill 

by acting through a subsidiary. 

Last, there is a provision that requires a notice be provided to 

the public before the project is initiated. That is important, but 

should go further in providing an opportunity for people to express 

concerns and have them addressed by the state or a Community 

Reclaimer. After all, a notice in the mail can raise a lot more questions than it answers. 

Regardless of how beneficial a project might be, neighbors may 

raise legitimate issues. They deserve the chance to share their 

thoughts with the Community Reclaimer and the state, and to have 

their concerns addressed in a timely manner. 

As the Community Reclamation Partnerships Act moves forward, 

we hope you will consider our thoughts and ensure that re-mining 

is not considered eligible for liability waivers, and that there is 

proper engagement with local communities. If the Committee is 

able to sufficiently address those issues while providing nongovernmental entities the liability coverage they need to help clean 

up Appalachian streams, then we would urge Congress to pass this 

bill quickly. 

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kay follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. THOM KAY, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, 

APPALACHIAN VOICES

Thank you Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Lowenthal, and members of the 

Committee for the opportunity to testify on the discussion draft of the ‘‘Community 

Reclaimers Partnership Act.’’ 

I am the Senior Legislative Representative for Appalachian Voices, an organization working to protect the land, air, and water of central and southern Appalachia 

for future generations and to one day see the region upheld as a national model of 

a vibrant, just, and sustainable economy. 

14 

THERE IS AN ENORMOUS BURDEN ON STATE AGENCIES TO DEAL WITH

EXISTING POLLUTION

Throughout Appalachia, there is an enormous need to restore former coal mine 

lands. Mined land that existed prior to the passage of the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), known as Abandoned Mine Land (AML), 

and mines that have been bond-forfeited more recently put large burdens on state 

agencies and the public. State agencies work hard to treat existing problems, but 

they simply do not have the resources necessary to complete the reclamation of 

millions of acres of land and thousands of miles of streams anytime in the near future. Virginia, for example, has over $400 million in remaining AML costs, but only 

receives in the ballpark of $5 million per year in AML grants. While distribution 

totals may change once the AML program is reauthorized, there is no reason to 

believe sufficient funds will all of a sudden become available. 

The decline of the coal industry over the last 5 years has led to a staggering number of bankruptcies and associated bond forfeitures. SMCRA was supposed to address this issue through bonding; however, bonding programs in central 

Appalachian states remain insufficient to deal with the industry downturn. In many 

cases, bonds at individual mines are insufficient to cover reclamation costs, especially when long-term water treatment becomes necessary. Many companies have 

been allowed to self-bond, in which states rely on a ‘‘too big to fail’’ approach, even 

as many of the largest companies have gone bankrupt. In other cases, pool bond programs have not accounted for multiple forfeitures at once. While these situations 

would not be directly impacted by this bill, they are important to consider because 

they place an additional burden upon state agencies. Once a mine is bond-forfeited, 

its reclamation becomes the responsibility of the state. 

CLEAN UP PROVIDES ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

In order to build wealth and prosperity in rural communities, clean water is 

absolutely essential. Additional resources are clearly needed for states to address 

decades’ worth of mining pollution. 

Cleaning up mine sites can improve both surface water and groundwater, which 

has clear environmental and economic benefits. Along with creating immediate reclamation jobs and drawing tourism through improving the land and protecting fish 

and wildlife, cleaning up mining pollution can help improve the health of communities. Stream and well water contamination are both widespread throughout central Appalachia. Many rural communities do not have easy access to municipal 

water when their well water becomes contaminated. Some common contaminants, 

such as iron, are a nuisance—staining clothes and appliances orange. Other common 

contaminants, like manganese, have potential effects on childhood development that 

are only beginning to be understood. Though thankfully more rare, some contaminants, such as arsenic, are known carcinogens. Appalachian Voices has found all 

three of these contaminants, as well as many others, in private well water throughout the region. 

Appalachian communities have demonstrated growing excitement about the lasting benefits associated with mine reclamation. Between the AML Pilot Program and 

the progress of the RECLAIM Act (H.R. 1731), communities are envisioning new, 

long-term economic opportunities that can be paired with the reclamation of our 

country’s Abandoned Mine Lands. Pairing such efforts with passage of the 

Community Reclaimer Protections Act could result not only in more cleanup, but 

also spur innovative projects in coal communities, many of which continue to struggle with the decline of coal mining jobs. 

THE BILL SHOULD NOT ALLOW ANY COMPANY TO ABUSE THE LIABILITY WAIVERS

FOR RE-MINING

It is my understanding that the bill is intended to allow for and encourage nongovernmental organizations to take on some of the heavy burden of treating water 

pollution caused by coal mining before 1977, while also preventing mining companies from escaping any of the responsibilities they have under current law. Most 

importantly to Appalachian Voices is that this bill does not allow companies to conduct any mining with any reduction in standard permitting requirements under the 

Clean Water Act, SMCRA, or other applicable law. 

We understand that, in certain cases, incidental coal removal can reduce the overall cost of site reclamation and does not further threaten water resources. This type 

of activity should be allowed if reclamation leaves previously polluted streams 

cleaner than they were before. But we see no reason for any company to receive 

extra liability protection for re-mining. 

15 

We do not believe there is an intention to allow companies to carry out re-mining 

projects under this bill, but it is possible, perhaps even likely, that changes to the 

existing language of this discussion draft will occur. I urge the Committee to ensure 

no loopholes are created that would allow any company to abuse the liability 

waivers granted under this act in order to obtain new surface mining permits at 

an AML site. 

DEFINING A ‘‘COMMUNITY RECLAIMER’’ 

While one solution to the issue of coal companies abusing the bill is to simply prohibit any such company from qualifying as a ‘‘Community Reclaimer,’’ I understand 

that the authors would like to give companies that opportunity. Given the experience and resources mining companies bring to the table, that decision is not unreasonable. Included in the bill’s definition of a ‘‘Community Reclaimer,’’ however, are 

sensible restrictions that would prohibit companies with unfulfilled reclamation obligations or outstanding violations from qualifying. We agree with that decision, but 

defining such persons or companies can be quite difficult. 

In many instances, a parent company may own as many as a several dozen subsidiary mining companies. These corporate structures often shield each individual 

company, as well as the parent company, from protective measures within SMCRA 

intended to prevent widespread pollution issues. According to the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, ‘‘section 510(c) of SMCRA prohibits issuance 

of a new permit to any applicant who owns or controls mining operations having 

unabated or uncorrected violations anywhere in the United States until those violations are abated or corrected or are in the process of being abated or corrected to 

the satisfaction of the agency with jurisdiction over the violation.’’ State agencies 

routinely issue permits to subsidiary companies even when other subsidiaries have 

outstanding violations. 

For example, citizens living around Coal River Mountain in West Virginia 

recently objected to the issuance of several new mountaintop removal permits in 

their area. Republic Energy, Inc., a subsidiary of Alpha Natural Resources, applied 

for the permits. Republic’s newest permit for the Long Ridge Mine was issued over 

citizens’ objection, even when Alex Energy, another Alpha subsidiary, had outstanding reclamation schedule violations at the time. Alpha Natural Resources owns 

at least 22 coal companies currently registered with the West Virginia Secretary of 

State. These companies all list the same manager, organizer, and office address. 

Alpha Natural Resources and its subsidiary have had numerous recent issues in 

West Virginia, including ongoing violations, coal slurry spills, and allegations of 

fraud, yet the subsidiaries are routinely treated as individual companies and granted leniency when it comes to permitting decisions and enforcement actions. 

Due to the prevalence of permitting and enforcement issues among subsidiary 

companies, the language defining ‘‘Community Reclaimer’’ should be strengthened. 

Currently, the definition includes, ‘‘Is not a past or current owner or operator of any 

site with ongoing reclamation obligations or subject to violations listed pursuant to 

section 510(c) of this Act (30 U.S.C. 1260(c)).’’ We suggest updating the definition 

to read ‘‘Is not a past or current owner or operator, and does not share a common 

owner or parent company with a past or current owner or operator, of any site with 

ongoing reclamation obligations or subject to violations listed pursuant to section 

510(c) of this Act (30 U.S.C. 1260(c)).’’ 

COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC

Last, there is a provision in this act that requires a notice be provided to 

‘‘adjacent and downstream landowners and the public before the project is initiated.’’ 

That is important, but should go further in providing each of the listed entities the 

opportunity to express concerns and have those concerns addressed by either the 

state or the Community Reclaimer. After all, a notice in the mail can raise a lot 

more questions than it answers. 

Regardless of how beneficial a project might be, neighbors may raise legitimate 

issues. They deserve an accessible and clear method of sharing their thoughts with 

the Community Reclaimer and the state and to have their concerns addressed in 

a timely manner. 

To be perfectly clear, we are not advocating for the creation of a bureaucratic barrier that could serve to prevent good projects from moving forward, nor do we want 

to allow any person from stopping projects without cause. Instead, we think the bill 

could be improved by making a clear requirement that the public should be given 

a reasonable opportunity to express concerns and have those concerns addressed. 

In doing so, it should also be clarified in the bill which entity is responsible for 

communication with the public from a project’s inception to completion: the state or 

16 

the Community Reclaimer. It appears that the responsibility falls to the Community 

Reclaimer, but clarification would be helpful. 

CONCLUSION

As the Community Reclaimer Protection Act moves forward, we hope you’ll 

consider our thoughts and ensure that re-mining is not considered eligible for liability waivers and that local communities are given an opportunity to voice concerns 

and have them addressed. If the Committee is able to sufficiently address those 

issues while providing non-governmental entities the liability coverage they need to 

help clean up Appalachian streams, then we would urge Congress to pass this bill 

quickly. 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Stefanko for his testimony. Thank 

you. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN STEFANKO, DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR 

THE OFFICE OF ACTIVE AND ABANDONED MINE OPERATIONS, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION, HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, ON BEHALF OF 

THE INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION AND 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ABANDONED MINE LAND 

PROGRAMS 

Mr. STEFANKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. I am appearing here today on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, and the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land 

Programs. We appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective 

on the status of the abandoned mine drainage treatment efforts, 

and to express our support for this much-needed amendment to 

SMCRA. 

Acid mine drainage, casually known as AMD, is a massive and 

pervasive problem. In Pennsylvania alone, over 5,600 miles of 

streams are impacted by AMD pollution from abandoned coal 

mines. The impacts to the health, environment, and economic livelihoods of our state’s communities are felt every day, and the story 

is similar for historic coal communities throughout the country. 

The AML program, under SMCRA, gives states the resources 

they need to counteract coal AML problems within their borders, 

including impacts to water resources. In an era of increasing economic hardship for coal field communities, this work has become 

more important than ever. But due to the problematic overlap in 

Federal law applicable to treatment of these sites, the AML 

programs are not being allowed to fully realize their mission. 

Coal AML sites are generally handled exclusively through 

SMCRA, but in cases where the Clean Water Act potentially applies, the state’s responsibilities are generally unclear. And where 

they are clear, they are typically not practical, and this is having 

a chilling effect on the state’s efforts to address AMD. 

The Clean Water Act, as a cornerstone of Federal environmental 

law, is intentionally very strict in regulating impacts to our 

Nation’s water resources. But as an unintended consequence of the 

strict design, its requirements simply do not comport well with the 

realities of treating AMD from abandoned mines. These sites are, 

17 

by definition, already polluted and, therefore, do not meet the 

Clean Water Act standards at the time treatment begins. 

Furthermore, the nature of AMD pollution is such that, in many 

cases, no amount of remediation work could achieve these standards fully in any case. Even so, joint and several liability under the 

Clean Water Act means any party who affects such a site becomes 

permanently responsible for treating the discharge to meet full 

standards. 

As a result, the states and their partners are exposed to significant, undeserved potential liability in the due course of their work, 

even where the project is authorized under SMCRA, conducted 

properly, and improving water quality. 

The key to resolving these issues is bringing clarity and practicality to the responsibilities borne by the AML programs as they 

conduct AMD projects. The bill before the Committee today—or 

discussion bill—would accomplish that goal by setting an established process for states to work with the relevant government 

authorities to outline a clear, achievable strategy for AMD water 

treatment under SMCRA. This will result in more prevalent and 

effective AMD water treatment work by the state AML programs, 

and more effective overall implementation of Federal law with 

respect to these sites. 

As much as these obstacles to the AMD treatment work can 

strain and complicate state efforts, circumstances are even worse 

for the state’s potential partners. These groups tend to have limited 

sources of funding, often in the form of discreet grants, and are, 

therefore, all the more vulnerable to the risks of undeserved 

liability. 

Pennsylvania recognized long ago that with the availability of 

these voluntary efforts, many of the state’s abandoned mine discharges would be eliminated or improved at little or no cost to the 

Pennsylvania taxpayer, if only the potential for undeserved liability 

could be addressed. 

To that end, Pennsylvania enacted its Environmental Good 

Samaritan Act of 1999, under which 79 AMD treatment projects 

have been undertaken in various partnerships among the Commonwealth. While these projects often do not strictly adhere to Clean 

Water standards, they nevertheless significantly improve water 

quality in receiving streams, the aggregate effect of which produces 

drastic improvements in overall health of the greater watershed at 

a comparatively low cost. 

Pennsylvania’s program has enabled these projects to occur without risk of undue liability under state law, but great risks still remain for the Commonwealth and their partners under Federal law, 

and still more projects could be pursued if not for that fact. 

The bill will allow the state-level program in Pennsylvania to 

achieve its full potential, and will provide the mechanism for other 

states to follow the successful model, and to enhance our own AMD 

treatment. The specter of undeserved liability under current circumstances constrains the state’s efforts under SMCRA, and deters 

motivated, well-intentioned volunteers from assisting in that work, 

which serves only to prolong the environmental, social, and economic harm these sites represent. 

18 

1 2016 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. 

2Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Section 101(h). 

With this bill, Congress has the opportunity to restore SMCRA’s 

role in AMD water treatment, enable the state AML programs and 

their partners to make meaningful progress in restoring our watersheds, and, in doing so, put an important piece of coal country’s 

future into place. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stefanko follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN STEFANKO, DEPUTY SECRETARY, ACTIVE AND

ABANDONED MINE OPERATIONS, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE INTER- STATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION, AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

ABANDONED MINE LAND PROGRAMS

INTRODUCTION

Good Morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is John 

Stefanko and I serve as the Deputy Secretary for Active and Abandoned Mining 

Operations within the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. I am 

appearing today on behalf of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission and the 

National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs, two multi-state governmental organizations that represent the natural resource and environmental protection interests of their 30 member states (and in the case of NAAMLP, three Indian 

tribes). 

We appreciate the opportunity to share our perspectives on the current status of 

abandoned mine drainage water treatment efforts and to express our support for 

this much-needed amendment to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

(SMCRA). 

In enacting the Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) Program under SMCRA, Congress 

sought to address a very difficult problem. Legacy coal mining sites have enduring 

impacts on public health and the environment; but because the mining occurred so 

long ago and the coal companies that conducted that mining are long since defunct, 

no known party exists with reclamation obligations for these sites under any state 

or Federal law. Put simply: abandoned mines are everyone’s problem but no one’s 

responsibility. 

SMCRA provides AML-impacted states the resources and authority they need to 

counteract the massive and costly AML problems within their borders. The state 

AML programs have made significant progress since the Act’s passage, but much 

remains to be done, in particular regarding waters impacted by abandoned mine 

drainage (AMD). In Pennsylvania alone, there are an estimated 5,600 miles of 

streams impaired by AMD.1

Congress clearly intended the mission of the SMCRA AML program to encompass 

mine drainage-impacted water treatment work,2 but due to problematic overlap in 

Federal Environmental Law applicable to such water pollution, the AML programs 

are not being allowed to fully realize that mission. As a result of the significant, 

undeserved liability faced by states and their AML partners under Federal Law, 

even where an AMD project would improve water quality, many potential projects 

are left sitting on the shelf, and many of the states’ potential partners are left sitting on the sideline. With the bill before the Committee today, this paralyzing ambiguity can be clarified and more effective overall implementation of Federal 

Environmental Law can be achieved. 

In an era of increasing economic hardship for coalfield communities throughout 

the country, the state AML programs’ work has become more important than ever. 

As the RECLAIM Act (H.R. 1731) before the Committee last month indicates, the 

AML programs are not only steadfast defenders of our coalfield communities’ health, 

safety, and environment, but are also key contributors to economic revitalization 

efforts. 

The water treatment work conducted by the state AML programs and their partners is particularly vital to economic revitalization. Clean, unpolluted water supplies and recreational waterways are foundational pieces of the new economic future 

for coal country that Congress seeks to build. Meanwhile, AML impacts like water 

pollution only worsen over time, and the resources available or that will become 

available to the state AML programs under SMCRA for their work, and in particular for water treatment, are significantly less than what is needed. Allowing the 

state AML programs to fulfill SMCRA’s role in treating water impacted by abanVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:59 Jul 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\115TH CONGRESS\ENERGY & MINERAL\05-24-17\25554.TXT DARLEN
19 

3 ‘‘Cleaning Up Abandoned Hardrock Mines In The West: Prospecting for a Better Future’’— 

Limerick, Ryan, Brown, and Comp, Center for the American West. 4 Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, March 30, 2006, pp. 2– 

3. 5 ‘‘Interim Guiding Principles for Good Samaritan Projects at Orphan Mine Sites and 

Transmittal of CERCLA Administrative Tools for Good Samaritans,’’ June 6, 2007. 

doned mines and bringing the resources and passion available from the states’ AML 

partners to bear on this massive and intractable problem is critical for the future 

of coal country. With the bill before the Committee today, Congress has the opportunity to achieve those ends and put an important piece of that future into place. 

AMD WATER TREATMENT AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT

The environmental decade of the 1970s brought sweeping changes to the way that 

water quality is regulated in the United States. Foundational environmental laws 

like SMCRA and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) helped 

to clean up our waterways and safeguard the health of our citizens and environment, and the country is undoubtedly a better place as a result. It is therefore a 

great irony that these laws, which were meant to facilitate water quality, now stand 

in the way of water quality improvements at AMD sites. 

The Clean Water Act, as a cornerstone of Federal Environmental Law, is intentionally very strict in the restrictions placed on and the penalties potentially assessed against those who impact our Nation’s water resources. As an unintended 

consequence of that strict design, and in particular its purposefully stringent and 

inflexible standards for water treatment, Clean Water Act requirements do not 

comport well with the realities of AMD treatment. 

With regard to this issue, John Whitaker, a White House staffer during the Nixon 

administration who played an integral role in the passage of the Clean Water Act, 

recalls the following: 

‘‘When I and other White House staffers responsible for environmental initiatives during the Nixon administration recommended to the President new 

water pollution control strategies for congressional consideration, our focus 

was primarily on sewage treatment and industrial effluent, not the acid 

mine drainage problems from abandoned mines. We should have had more 

foresight . . . We did not envision at the time that the day would come when 

the zero discharge provision would prevent Good Samaritans from cleaning 

up acid mine drainage . . .’’ 3

This dilemma has been confirmed by the Environmental Protection Agency on 

many occasions, and is summarized well by the following quote from an EPA 

Administrator’s testimony before Congress in 2006: 

‘‘Under the CWA, a party may be obligated to obtain a discharge permit 

which requires compliance with water quality standards in streams that are 

already in violation of these standards . . . Yet, in many cases, the impacted 

water bodies may never fully meet water quality standards, regardless of 

how much cleanup or remediation is done. By holding Good Samaritans accountable to the same cleanup standards as polluters or requiring strict 

compliance with the highest water quality standards, we have created a 

strong disincentive to voluntary cleanups. Unfortunately, this has resulted in 

the perfect being the enemy of the good.’’ 4

The crux of the problem is that the Federal statutory paradigm for treating AMDimpacted water is not well-suited to the unique characteristics of these sites. The 

fundamental issue with AMD treatment is that impacted waterways are by definition already impaired, and in the case of abandoned mines, the originators of the 

pollution have long since gone out of business. Even so, due to joint and several liability under the Clean Water Act, any party who re-affects an AMD-impacted site 

risks being held permanently responsible for fully eliminating the existing 

discharge, even where the pollution is the result of legacy mining, the project is significantly improving water quality, the party in question has no connection to the 

pollution, and no recklessness or negligence is exhibited. 

The EPA has acknowledged and attempted to mediate the conflict between AMD 

treatment and the Clean Water Act in the past, but the Agency’s efforts have not 

meaningfully facilitated progress. The EPA’s guidance memoranda of 2007 5 and 

20 

6 Clean Water Act Sec. 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit 

requirements for ‘‘Good Samaritans’’ at Orphan Mine Sites, Dec. 12, 2012. 7 House Report 101–24, to accompany the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 1989, pg. 37. 

8 Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program; Limited Liability for Noncoal Reclamation by 

Certified States and Indian Tribes, 80 Fed. Re. 24 (February 5, 2015). 

2012 6 regarding ‘‘Good Samaritan’’ involvement in such projects, and the ‘‘comfort 

letters’’ issued by the Agency pursuant to that approach, have, for reasons which 

will be discussed further below, unfortunately led to very few additional projects 

being undertaken. 

The obstacles posed by the Clean Water Act to the treatment of AMD-impacted 

water have significantly slowed progress with such projects throughout the country 

and efforts to rectify the issue have been underway for over 20 years. While the 

need for resolution of this issue has been widely agreed upon for some time, the 

specifics of the ideal solution have long been debated—and it is clear that debate 

is stalling water treatment work that our coalfield communities desperately need. 

While the issue is typically discussed in the context of hardrock AML (mainly due 

to the absence of a dedicated national hardrock AML program, which accentuates 

the need to facilitate those efforts) current circumstances also strongly 

disincentivize AMD treatment at coal AML sites, even where conducted under 

SMCRA. IMCC and NAAMLP strongly support efforts to facilitate much-needed 

hardrock AML work through Good Samaritan legislation, as well as the enactment 

of a national hardrock AML program akin to the coal AML Program under SMCRA, 

and we intend to continue our work with Congress and affected stakeholders to support the development of legislation to those ends. In the meantime, the bill before 

the Committee today presents a comparatively simple path to making meaningful 

progress with a significant portion of the country’s AMD-impacted water resources 

through the existing coal AML Program. 

OBSTACLES TO AMD WATER TREATMENT UNDER SMCRA TITLE IV

Under the SMCRA AML Program, Congress has already established a system to 

contend with water pollution resulting from AMD at abandoned coal mines, which 

was clearly intended to become the primary mechanism by which these sites are 

handled under Federal law. 

As defined by SMCRA Title IV, lands and waters eligible for state AML projects 

are confined to those for which ‘‘no reclamation obligation exists under state or 

other Federal Laws,’’ which is essentially to say that no party with responsibility 

for the pollution is known to exist. Essentially, if these sites were subject to existing 

Clean Water Act, CERCLA, or other Federal liability, they would not be eligible 

under SMCRA Title IV in the first place, and thus it is generally understood that 

other Federal laws potentially relevant to abandoned AMD pollution are not 

necessary for AML sites listed and treated under the auspices of SMCRA.7

SMCRA eligible AML sites can involve discharges of AMD, but in the absence of 

any liable party with respect to the site, there are generally not the means available 

to treat the site under other Federal environmental programs. Accordingly, the 

status quo is that SMCRA Title IV has served as the primary mechanism to treat 

AMD resulting from eligible coal AML sites. With SMCRA being specifically aimed 

at this sub-group of uniquely situated, abandoned discharges, and Federal and state 

efforts under CERCLA and the Clean Water Act being generally targeted at, and 

often overwhelmed with, other cleanup activities, this arrangement is reasonable 

and has worked well. 

While the above generally holds true for coal AML work, the Clean Water Act’s 

relationship with AML work has become a special case. Despite the fact that Title 

IV eligible sites are not subject to existing Clean Water Act liability and that the 

handling of Title IV eligible sites with AMD-impacted water are generally deferred 

to the SMCRA AML programs, the act of constructing, operating, or otherwise affecting a mine drainage treatment system or other point-source discharge carries 

the risk of exposure to liability with respect to the discharge under the Clean Water 

Act, as well as responsibility to comply with Clean Water Act Sec. 402 and obtain 

an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. For the reasons explained above, this risk has proven very problematic. 

SMCRA Title IV Section 405(l) is intended to allow states with approved AML 

programs to proceed with their efforts unimpeded by unnecessary liability under 

Federal Law—but this section only applies with respect to potential liability under 

such laws, as opposed to compliance with those laws.8 While that distinction is generally immaterial to the states’ AML work vis-a`-vis other relevant Federal Law, 

since as explained above, there is generally no cause for such responsibility at Title 

IV eligible sites, Section 413(d) of SMCRA specifically requires that treatment 

21 

9 Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. East Bay Municipal Utility District. 10Pursuant to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in West Virginia Highlands 

Conservancy v. Huffman to designate water treatment facilities as point-source discharges, West 

Virginia must now obtain CWA permits for bond forfeiture sites. There have been concerns that 

this ruling could be extended to AML projects being undertaken by the states and tribes under 

SMCRA. 11 It is important to note that AML reclamation is handled separately and distinctly from bond 

forfeiture sites, and that these sites, and any companies experiencing bond forfeiture, would not 

be eligible for participation under the bill before the Committee today. 

systems constructed and operated by the states under SMCRA fully comply with the 

Clean Water Act. AMD is generally understood to be defined as a non-point source 

and would therefore not generally be subject to NPDES requirements even given the 

requirement in 413(d), but recent court decisions have created a different 

expectation. 

Under current circumstances, an AMD treatment system may be considered to 

‘‘convey’’ a polluted water source and therefore in fact to be a point-source discharge, 

even where the system is actually reducing pollution loading.9 The courts have also 

created an expectation that states and volunteer groups affecting an existing source 

of water pollution may be held as ‘‘operators’’ under the Clean Water Act and compelled to comply with full requirements of and liability associated with an NPDES 

discharge,10, 11 even where those requirements are clearly unreasonable and the 

liability clearly undeserved with respect to the parties in question. These developments have exacerbated the concern surrounding the potential for untenable consequences for well-intentioned and well-performed cleanup efforts at AMD sites. 

At the center of this concern is the simple fact that, as noted above, NPDES 

permits are not well-suited for treating AMD-impacted water. In many instances, 

strict compliance with water quality standards imposed under Section 402 of the 

CWA is not logistically possible or technically practical. Even where achieving compliance is possible, the diminishing return on funding needed to achieve that standard renders the pursuit uneconomical and imprudent given limited resources and 

the prevalence of other critical AMD water treatment priorities. These realities of 

AMD treatment have led many state AML programs to adopt an approach that attempts to maximize the number of discharges that receive treatment to the highest 

standard practicable, in particular such that they support biological and other functions of the water resource. While these projects often do not strictly adhere to 

NPDES water quality based effluent requirements, they nevertheless significantly 

improve water quality in the receiving streams, the aggregate effect of which produces drastic improvements in overall health of the greater watershed at a comparatively low cost. 

The network of pollution-reducing active and passive water treatment systems 

employed by many state AML programs under this approach has led to great strides 

in restoring AMD-impacted watersheds, as well the community health and livelihoods which depend on those watersheds; but as a result of these systems’ inability 

to comply fully with the Clean Water Act as described above, the state AML 

programs risk exposure to daunting undeserved liability (and therefore risk to their 

past and future progress with other AMD priorities) whenever they undertake such 

projects. These circumstances continue to discourage if not totally preclude many 

states’ (and even more so their potential AML partners’) ability to treat water under 

their approved SMCRA AML programs; and even in states that have been able to 

proceed with some amount of water treatment work, these circumstances have been 

a severely complicating factor. 

To summarize, Title IV-eligible coal AML sites are generally handled exclusively 

through the auspices of SMCRA, but in cases where the Clean Water Act does or 

seems potentially to apply based on certain relevant legal decisions, the states’ 

responsibilities under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act are generally unclear, and 

where they are clear, are typically impracticable. 

FACILITATING AMD TREATMENT WORK UNDER THE COMMUNITY RECLAMATION

PARTNERSHIPS ACT

As noted above, the EPA has attempted to resolve this issue administratively 

through Guidance memoranda, which essentially outline conditions under which the 

Agency will waive its enforcement authority under the Clean Water Act (i.e. forego 

applying undeserved penalties and unreasonable compliance responsibilities) for 

mine drainage treatment projects conducted under certain conditions. In similar 

22 

12For example, under such agreements, the states may not be expected to achieve full water 

quality compliance where infeasible, may not be required to sample for the full range of constituents generally applicable, and may have their responsibility otherwise proscribed based on 

conditions at a given site and the state’s staffing and financial capability—but for reasons 

described below, these agreements provide limited assurance to the AML programs. 13Title 27 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Annotated Sections 8101–8114. 

fashion, many state AML programs have reached understandings 12 with the EPA 

and/or their state NPDES authority counterparts to outline practicable levels of 

compliance with NPDES for their respective AML programs based on the main goal: 

improving water quality. 

The primary remaining obstacle is that, despite assurances and understandings 

described above, these projects are still potentially subject to citizen suit liability 

under the Clean Water Act. Due to the requirement in 413(d), and the developments 

in relevant legal precedence described above, the states’ efforts may be deemed noncompliant by the courts where they do not fulfill NPDES requirements. This means 

that even where these projects are conducted under SMCRA, condoned by the EPA 

and/or state NPDES authority, and are improving water quality by reducing 

pollution loading, a state could still be assessed liability and compelled to take immediately required, expensive, tax-funded action to return a given site to an impracticable condition, which is ultimately what the states must avoid. 

The key to resolving this issue is bringing clarity and practicality to any Clean 

Water Act compliance responsibilities borne by the states as they conduct AMD 

water treatment under SMCRA. This bill would accomplish that goal by setting an 

established, thorough process by which state AML programs can work with their 

NPDES authority counterparts (contingent on EPA approval) to outline a clear, 

achievable, statutorily-sanctioned strategy for their water treatment work. This approach will ensure that the purposes of the Clean Water Act are upheld while providing necessary assurance that such efforts will be considered compliant with the 

Clean Water Act in the future, and can be pursued free from concerns with liability 

stemming from the unreasonable, unhelpful aspects of the Clean Water Act’s application to AMD treatment work. 

The amendment proposed by the bill represents a genuine attempt to find the appropriate middle-ground between SMCRA and the Clean Water Act for AMD 

projects, and ensure that the purposes of the Clean Water Act are fulfilled through 

the state AML programs’ efforts. These improvements will result in more prevalent 

and effective AMD water treatment work by the state AML programs, and more 

effective overall implementation of Federal Law with respect to these sites. Without 

such improvements, the ambiguity remaining in (and certain other prohibitive aspects of) the Law’s application to abandoned AMD pollution will continue to 

constrain and delay the states’ progress under SMCRA. 

REMOVING OBSTACLES TO PARTNERSHIPS FOR AMD TREATMENT WORK

The obstacles to AMD treatment work described above constrain and complicate 

the states’ efforts significantly, but for the states’ would-be partners in those efforts, 

the impediment is much worse. Now more than ever, the states and their AMLimpacted communities could use the assistance of their passionate and capable 

Community Reclaimer partners, but current circumstances unfortunately heavily 

disincentivize that possibility. 

Much like the state AML programs themselves, their partners face the potential 

for devastating undeserved liability in the due course of their AMD treatment work, 

even where the group in question has no connection to the site and the project is 

significantly improving water quality. What’s more, the states’ partners tend to have 

limited sources of funding, often in the form of discrete grants, and are therefore 

all the more vulnerable to the risks of undeserved liability and infeasible compliance 

responsibility. If these groups are not completely certain of their responsibilities and 

potential liability as a result of conducting, participating in, or funding a project, 

and that those responsibilities will be practicable, they will have little choice but 

to forego those activities or risk lethal impacts to the financial health of their 

organization. 

Pennsylvania recognized long ago that with the availability of these volunteer 

efforts and advances made in our understanding of mine drainage, many of the 

state’s abandoned coal mine AMD discharges could be eliminated or improved at little or no cost to the Pennsylvania tax-payer if only the potential for undeserved liability could be addressed. To that end, Pennsylvania enacted its Environmental 

Good Samaritan Act of 1999,13 under which 79 AMD treatment projects have been 

undertaken in various partnerships between the Commonwealth, local governments 

and municipal authorities, individual community supporters, corporations, waterVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:59 Jul 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\115TH CONGRESS\ENERGY & MINERAL\05-24-17\25554.TXT DARLEN
23 

shed associations, and conservancies. These projects are spread among 20 counties 

and 53 distinct groups, and the majority of these projects are active today. Statelevel liability protections have enabled these projects to occur without risk of undue 

liability under state law, but risks remain for the Commonwealth and their partners 

under Federal law, and still more projects could have been pursued if not for the 

remaining specter of liability. 

Much like the proposal in the bill before the Committee today, projects eligible 

under the EGSA must abate water pollution resulting from abandoned mine lands 

and eligible participants must meet certain conditions demonstrating that they and 

the project are worthy of liability protections offered by the program. A key component of the program’s success is its reliance on the state AML program’s longstanding expertise in their field. Under the EGSA, all activities related to a given 

project proceed under the guidance and approval of the Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Protection (PADEP), which utilizes its expertise and long resume ́

of successful water treatment projects to appropriately adjust requirements to 

match the scale and complexity of the proposed project and to ensure that only wellconceived projects move forward. The program proposed by the bill before the 

Committee today reflects the structure of the EGSA, and should successfully integrate its advantages. 

Pennsylvania’s experience in the almost 20 years since the passage of the EGSA 

demonstrates that there are countless opportunities for Community Reclaimers to 

assist the AML programs, especially in the treatment of AMD-impacted water. The 

Commonwealth and its partners’ work under the EGSA provides a proof of concept 

for the beneficial, responsible participation of such groups in the AML programs’ 

work as well as for the bill before the Committee today. 

FACILITATING AMD TREATMENT WORK UNDER THE COMMUNITY RECLAMATION

PARTNERSHIPS ACT

This bill would build on the proven program in SMCRA, take the lessons of the 

successful program in Pennsylvania, and responsibly confer with relevant authorities, to establish a distinct process for unnecessarily marginalized groups to work 

with the state AML programs as partners. 

The critical components of this approach are the states’ assumption of ultimate 

responsibility for the project under Federal law, the strong definition of Community 

Reclaimer, and the requirement that these projects be conducted pursuant to a 

state’s approved Reclamation Plan, including where applicable the jointly developed 

strategy for AMD treatment as developed under Section 405(m) of the proposed 

amendment. 

The states’ assumption of responsibility under Section (n)(1)(v) of the bill will ensure that ultimate care of affected sites will be accounted for in accordance with the 

State Reclamation Plan. It will also allow the states to provide the necessary assurances to prospective partners that they will not be assessed Federal liability outside 

the terms and conditions of the State Reclamation Plan and the state’s agreement 

with the partner as described in (n)(1)(v). It is interesting to note that AML contractors utilized under the conventional AML program are similar to volunteer groups 

in that they could theoretically be subject to similar liability by affecting a polluted 

site, becoming considered ‘‘operators’’ under Federal environmental law, and thus 

being exposed to joint and several liability. In some cases, states mitigate liability 

risk to prospective contractors by formally agreeing as a condition of the contract 

to assume potential liability as a result of remaining pollution or certain accidental 

releases (basically any instance in which the contractor would be exposed to undue 

liability, meaning other than liability that is a result of their own recklessness or 

negligence). The program proposed by the bill before the Committee today would 

emulate this not-unprecedented solution represented by the assumption of ultimate 

liability by the state, thereby providing volunteer groups the assurance they need 

to securely proceed with their efforts, while also ensuring that, at the end of the 

day, the site will be taken care of appropriately. 

The proper care of these sites will be further ensured by the fact that these 

projects will be conducted in compliance with the States Reclamation Plan and 

under the guidance of the state AML program, and, where applicable, will support 

the attainment of water improvements under the terms and conditions agreed to by 

the state AML program and other relevant agencies and approved by the EPA as 

required by Section 405(m) of the proposed amendment. 

Through the definition of Community Reclaimer provided by the bill, eligible 

groups will be confined to those who have no connection to the pollution at the site, 

genuinely seek to improve the environment, have a strong history of environmental 

compliance, and are otherwise worthy of participation in this program. Between the 

24 

fundamental requirement that no Title IV AML site may be subject to existing liability, the strict bar set for participation in the program by the Community 

Reclaimer definition, the appropriate exceptions for instances of reckless and gross 

negligence, and the fact that the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement will review and approve each project pursued under the program, this bill is 

clearly designed to ensure that only parties deserving of participation in the program are allowed to do so. For this reason and those described above, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, IMCC, and NAAMLP believe that this bill provides a 

responsible approach to achieving its much-needed ends. 

Pennsylvania’s citizen, watershed, and environmental groups have long been 

working to address the impacts of legacy mining under the state-level protections 

of the Commonwealth’s model EGSA, but even this particularly well-established 

community of potential Community Reclaimers has the potential to make an even 

more impactful contribution given the chance through the bill before the Committee 

today. For states who, in the absence of a program similar to the EGSA, do not benefit from such fruitful partnerships with their potential Community Reclaimers, this 

bill will ease the inadvertent suppression of these groups’ assistance and help those 

partnerships to grow. 

The bottom-line is that if we are to eliminate the lingering effects of abandoned 

coal mines, and in particular the impairment of our communities’ water resources, 

every available tool and every source of help is needed. The Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania, IMCC, and NAAMLP believe this bill is a responsible solution to providing the long-awaited assurances potential Community Reclaimers need to enhance their work and give the state AML programs the assistance they need to 

fulfill the potential of the SMCRA AML Program. 

CONCLUSION

The SMCRA AML Program has made great progress with the reclamation of 

abandoned coal mines, but the cost remaining to complete reclamation in every state 

far outweighs what has been or will be available from the AML fee. SMCRA Title 

IV justifiably prioritizes immediate dangers from AML sites to public health and 

safety, but the investment of limited grant funding in this work makes it difficult 

for the states to maintain adequate, consistent funding for water treatment work. 

As coal production declines, AML grant funding declines in turn, and with expiration of the AML fee pending in 2021, the future of AML grant funding under 

SMCRA is seemingly limited, or at best unclear. Meanwhile, the current inventory 

of known AML problems sits at over $10 billion—which would be significantly 

higher were the full long-term costs of AMD water treatment accurately reflected 

in the inventory. 

While the future of the AML program remains unclear, with each passing year 

in which the resolution of these obstacles to AMD treatment is delayed, this fact 

at least has become increasingly difficult to ignore: the remaining inventory of abandoned mine lands is so large and the existing governmental resources so comparatively limited, that without a clearer, more practical process for treating AMD under 

SMCRA, and without the robust assistance of the states’ AML partners, it will be 

impossible to complete the SMCRA AML programs’ mission of restoring our 

country’s AML-impacted lands and waters. 

The specter of undeserved liability under current circumstances constrains the 

states’ efforts under SMCRA and deters motivated, well-intentioned volunteers from 

assisting in that work, which serves only to prolong the environmental, social, and 

economic harm these sites represent. 

It is time for Congress to restore SMCRA’s role in AMD water treatment and enable the state AML programs and their partners to make meaningful progress to 

that end. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. GOSAR TO MR. JOHN STEFANKO

Question 1. How does Pennsylvania handle public involvement in Good Samaritan 

projects? For example, does the state provide public notice for each project or 

provide opportunities for public comment? 

1a. If public notice is required, who provides that notice, the state or the Good 

Samaritan? 

Answer. Under the Pennsylvania (PA) Good Samaritan program, the 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is responsible for 

providing public notice of proposed projects. (The person or group proposing the 

25 

project may also give public notice, but is not required to do so.) There are two 

acceptable methods of public notice. The first approach is to provide a 30-day 

comment period by certified mail to adjacent property owners and riparian landowners identified by the applicant. The second approach is to provide public notice 

of the proposed project in a newspaper of general circulation in the locality of the 

project. The newspaper advertisement must be published once-a-week for 4 consecutive weeks with a 30-day comment period after the last publication date. PADEP 

consults with the applicant when deciding on which method to use. Project participants and project landowners can be held liable if the project causes damage to adjacent landowners or downstream riparian landowners who did not receive the 

certified mail notice. It is therefore important that the project applicant fully assess 

the potential for off-site damage to determine how far downstream damage may 

occur. Alternatively, the newspaper notice is more expensive and it requires a longer 

review period; however, it provides immunity from liability for damage to all adjacent landowners and all downstream riparian landowners. It should be noted that 

some newspapers no longer print but only publish online. PA is currently evaluating 

potential changes to our public notice process to address this trend and ensure that 

public notices continue to meet the requirements of the Act while reaching the maximum intended audience. 

Any person having an interest that may be adversely affected by the proposed 

project has a right to file written objections with the DEP. Objections must be filed 

within 30 days after the receipt of the certified letter or the date of the last newspaper advertisement. PADEP provides a copy of all objections to the project applicant and considers the objections when approving or disapproving the project. 

Question 2. How does Pennsylvania handle instances of gross negligence with 

their Good Samaritan partners? Are the Good Samaritans considered liable in those 

cases? 

Answer. The PA Environmental Good Samaritan Act (Act) does not provide immunity in cases where injury or damage results from the landowner’s or participant’s 

acts or omissions that are determined to be reckless, grossly negligent or willful 

misconduct. The Act also does not provide immunity for unlawful activities by the 

landowner or participant. 

The Act does not give PADEP the authority to determine who does or does not 

receive protections from liability. That question must be resolved in civil court. If 

a lawsuit is brought against a landowner or project participant for injury or damage, 

the landowner or participant will have to demonstrate to the court that they qualify 

for the protections in the Act. 

Question 3. Do Good Samaritan partners often use subcontractors in executing 

projects? 

3a. How are the subcontractors selected? 

3b. Are these subcontractors protected from liability under Pennsylvania law as 

well? 

Answer. Subcontractors are used by Good Samaritan partners in Pennsylvania. 

The subcontractors are chosen by the Good Samaritan partners. That selection 

process is not subject to the provisions of the Act. 

Under the Act, a person or organization that receives payment or consideration, 

or receives some other benefit through a contract for reclamation, treatment or 

abatement is not entitled to the Act’s protections. Typically, this would exclude mine 

operators, contractors under Government-Financed Construction Contracts, PADEP 

Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation contracts, and contracts with sureties and 

private contracts with landowners. 

Question 4. Does Pennsylvania currently allow mining companies to serve as Good 

Samaritans and conduct reclamation work? 

4a. What requirements must a mining company meet in order to serve as a Good 

Samaritan in Pennsylvania? 

4b. How do these companies prove their ‘‘innocence’’ with respect to abandoned 

mine lands? Are there any requirements regarding outstanding reclamation 

obligations or SMCRA violations? If so, please describe them and how 

companies demonstrate their eligibility. 

4c. Are ‘‘innocent’’ companies that are somehow tied to other companies with 

SMCRA violations allowed to serve as Good Samaritans? For instance, if a 

company without any SMCRA violations is owned by a parent company with 

SMCRA violations, is the ‘‘innocent’’ company able to serve as a Good 

Samaritan? 

26 

Answer. The PA Environmental Good Samaritan Act covers persons who voluntarily provide equipment, materials or services at no charge or at cost for reclamation and abatement work on eligible lands and water. A ‘‘person’’ is defined as a 

natural person, partnership, association, association members, corporation, political 

subdivision of the Commonwealth, an agency, instrumentality or entity of Federal 

or state government or other legal entity recognized by law as the subject of rights 

and liabilities. Mine operators may quality as Good Samaritans. However, a mine 

operator who has an obligation under a consent order or any other legal responsibility for the reclamation or pollution abatement would not be eligible. Legal responsibility or liability of the mine operator would be shared with the operator’s officers, 

principal shareholders, agents, partners, associates, parent corporation, contractors 

or subcontractors, or related parties. Additionally, mine operators with any outstanding violation of the mining statutes would be ineligible. Compliance status and 

potential legal responsibility is determined using current compliance and ownership/ 

control database information. 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the panel for their testimony. Reminding the 

members of the Committee that Rule 3(d) imposes a 5-minute limit 

on questions, the Chairman will now recognize Members for any 

questions they may wish to ask the witnesses. 

I would like to recognize the gentleman who is the author of the 

current bill today, Mr. LaHood from Illinois. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that very 

much. I want to thank the witnesses for your valuable testimony 

here today, and I am honored to be the author of this proposed 

legislation. 

And, Chris, I enjoyed looking at the map up on the TV monitor 

there. As I looked at central and west central Illinois, which includes much of my district, the volume of red dots up there—and 

this is not only an area that is in the Rocky Mountains or in the 

Appalachian area, it is applicable all across the country. 

As we look at this legislation, I do think about those areas of 

abandoned mines in my district, and the tourism, recreation, and 

fishing opportunities that we currently have in much of that area. 

But there are many blighted areas with abandoned mines that do 

not have that same ability. 

I have also interacted with a lot of private organizations that 

want to help, want to be involved, and want to be Good Samaritans. The Nature Conservancy has done a big project called 

Emiquon in my district along the Illinois River, which has created 

a vast area for recreation and tourism. 

As I look at this legislation and how we get it right here, there 

is a lot that is going to be focused on the mechanics and the process and procedure for the application. And how do we codify that 

the right way before we move forward? All of you have touched on 

that a little bit. 

I guess, Mr. Stefanko, I would start with you. In looking at the 

application process, and working with, obviously, the different secretaries on these reclamation projects, give us your thoughts on 

how we get this right, in terms of the application process. 

Mr. STEFANKO. Pennsylvania, itself, already has an application 

in process by which, essentially, you do register to be eligible for 

the Good Samaritan Act in Pennsylvania. 

You have to show what organization you are, the project that you 

are going to do, that you have absolutely no connection to that particular discharge or are liable for it in no manner, in what way. 

27 

You have to show that there is property owner access to the property, and that the property owner will allow access to actually do 

the treatment on the site itself. 

If you meet all these specific criterias for that particular project, 

then we consider you registered for the Good Samaritan liability. 

I think something on the Federal level very similar to that would 

work very well. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Chris, any further thoughts on that? 

Mr. WOOD. No, I think that is exactly right. What we want to 

do is try to replicate what we have been able to do successfully in 

Pennsylvania around the rest of the country. 

And even in Pennsylvania I would say that, because of some judicial interpretations of the Clean Water Act, we are operating at 

some liability risk. It may not be as substantial in other states that 

don’t have stand-alone state legislation, but this would provide 

security for all of this kind of work, all around the country, which 

is what is needed. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And Mr. Kay? 

Mr. KAY. Thank you. Yes, I think making sure that communities 

are involved in the discussion of this, I would want to make sure 

that we not only talk to the Community Reclaimers and the state, 

but also talk to some people who have lived near some of these 

sites, and give them a chance to address any issues they have had 

in the past that we might want to include in this process. But I 

think we can look at that for best practices from the state, which 

I hear only good things. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And Mr. Wood, in terms of what you have seen in 

Pennsylvania in terms of a success story, can you give us an idea 

of the amount of private-sector money that has flowed into these 

projects? 

Mr. WOOD. I can’t give you an exact amount. I can get back to 

you with that, though. But I will tell you that the return on investment is fairly significant. Going back 11 years ago, we looked at 

the West Branch of the Susquehanna and determined that for 

every Federal dollar going in $1.50 was being spent. That is really 

dated, that is 11 years old. 

Notably, given how you started your question earlier, we also determined that if we improved water quality in the West Branch to 

a substantial degree, we would be able to see at least $50 million 

in additional economic benefit coming to the region, just from 

having an improved fishery alone. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Stefanko, do you have any further thoughts on 

that, in terms of the amount of investment? 

Mr. STEFANKO. I do. Basically, because of the fact that this provides another option for the states that have these AMD problems 

to get a lot of work done. We have limited funding to address these 

resources, so by allowing these entities to come in—whether it be 

industry, whether it be a local watershed group, who could potentially have access to other funding—it does allow us to enhance our 

programs and get a lot more work accomplished that we may not 

be able to do. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the Ranking 

Member, Mr. Lowenthal, for his 5 minutes. 

28 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to follow up on 

my introductory remarks. I would like to ask a question about 

Section 4, which is titled, ‘‘Conforming Amendments,’’ but seems to 

make major changes to the law. I am referring to Section B, in 

particular. 

Currently in Section 413(d) of the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act, or SMCRA, it reads, ‘‘The Secretary or the state, 

pursuant to an approved state program, shall have the power and 

authority to construct and operate a plant or plants for the control 

and treatment of water pollution resulting from the mine.’’ And 

also, ‘‘No control or treatment under this subsection shall in any 

way be less than that required under the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act.’’ 

Section 4(b) of the discussion draft before us amends that by 

adding at the end, ‘‘unless for areas within that state there exists 

a state Memorandum of Understanding approved under Section 

405(m) of this Act.’’ 

So, therefore, it appears that this language would now allow the 

state to meet standards below the Clean Water Act, as long as 

there is an MOU. I don’t know if that is the intent of the bill, but 

it does seem to me that it goes far beyond the projects involving 

Community Reclaimers. 

Could each of you address what you believe the impact of this 

language would be, and whether you think this amendment, this 

language, is appropriate? 

I want to start with—anyone want to—— 

Mr. STEFANKO. I will jump in. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Good. 

Mr. STEFANKO. The intent of the language is we want to meet 

the intent of the Federal law. But in the case of these particular 

AMD discharges, when these groups are going in—even when we 

go in—the site is already polluted. So, does the benefit outweigh 

the good here? 

If we can go in and address an AMD discharge that has been polluting a stream for over 50 years, and we can get it 90 percent to 

where it needs to be, I think we should allow those opportunities 

to happen, especially for those groups, those community groups, 

who live in these communities. And there are kids in these communities that have never realized what a clean stream looks like, 

because all they have ever seen is this orange stream. 

So, the intent is for those that are covered under SMCRA, which 

is what we will operate under—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Right. 

Mr. STEFANKO [continuing]. And if that project is approved under 

SMCRA—so it might be a matter of clarifying that language in 

there to ensure that it only covers what we are trying to do, which 

is—we are already doing these projects with the authority under 

SMCRA, and we just want those to be able to continue without the 

concern of the—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. So, you believe that the language might be 

vague or something that might need to be clarified? 

Mr. STEFANKO. Yes, it probably would need a little bit more 

clarification. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Kay, do you have any response? 

29 

Mr. KAY. We have been looking at that section, too, with a little 

bit of confusion. I think clarity is the most important thing to offer 

there, but I very much agree with Mr. Stefanko about the need for 

states to be able to improve streams, even if they cannot quite—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Got it. And we understand what you are getting 

at. But it does seem that there is the potential for this to go far 

beyond the Community Reclaimers, just by the very language that 

was presented, not so much the intent of the state and what they 

are doing. 

Do you have any comments on that, Mr. Wood? 

Mr. WOOD. I will simply add that we read Section 4(m) to speak 

to remediate mine drainage on abandoned mine land and water 

within the state. That would be the purpose of the MOU. I think 

one of the substantive recommendations that we will offer in the 

coming days would be that we see some language that speaks 

about measurable improvements in water quality, or some such 

thing that clarifies the intent of the provision. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you all. I have some more questions, but 

I am going to yield back now until we—thank you. 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. 

I understand that those concerns have been raised as to how 

landowner liability will be handled for the Community Reclaimer 

projects. 

Mr. Stefanko, does the state of Pennsylvania enter into any sort 

of contract with landowners of the sites where Good Samaritans 

are conducting reclamation? 

Mr. STEFANKO. The Commonwealth itself does not. The Good 

Samaritan groups that actually do the work that they submit to us 

do enter into agreements with the property owner to allow them 

access. We do provide grant funding out to groups to do this type 

of work, and one of the requirements that we do have at the 

Commonwealth is that they show us that they do have access to 

the property. 

There are a lot of property owners out there that are a little hesitant, especially a property owner that maybe the discharge is not 

currently on their property, but they are willing to donate a piece 

of their property such that they can build a treatment system on 

it. They would be hesitant that they would potentially then be liable. But we do require an access agreement to a property, so it can 

be built on the property. 

Dr. GOSAR. Yes. You have examples of that, so that you are able 

to explain and give a detailed in situ-type of project that you could 

reference to the landowner? 

[No response.] 

Dr. GOSAR. For example, if they are hesitant, you can actually 

take an example that actually went forward, and actually have 

them oversee that, the remedy. 

Mr. STEFANKO. Yes. I mean, because there are a lot of good folks 

that want to build something. 

We have our own access agreements that we, at the Commonwealth, use that, as everybody in this room would probably know, 

has a lot more language in it that can be intimidating to a property 

owner regarding liability. But if we could provide some type of an 

access agreement to them that shows that they don’t have that 

30 

liability concern any more in a simplified manner, I think it would 

enhance that many more projects that we do get. 

As far as the individual agreements that maybe are entered into 

between the Community Reclaimer and itself, all we need is something from them showing that they do have access. That could 

come in any form. It could be something as simple as a letter. It 

could be a formal agreement, which could very much differ from an 

actual consent for right of entry that we, the Commonwealth, 

would enter into when we are building one of our own projects. 

Dr. GOSAR. You kind of went into my next question, so this is for 

you and for Mr. Wood. 

Are the landowners granted a liability waiver during the 

execution of that project? 

Mr. STEFANKO. Under Pennsylvania’s Good Samaritan, yes. 

Dr. GOSAR. Mr. Wood? 

Mr. WOOD. It is blinking at me. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WOOD. Yes. We work under the protection of the 

Pennsylvania Good Samaritan law, so in that case we just default 

to their standards. 

Dr. GOSAR. And since I am on that subject, do we have documentation—I mean, Mr. Wood, you showed some documentation on 

the screens. Do we have videos that actually show past projects, 

from beginning to end? 

Mr. WOOD. It is so interesting that you mentioned that. We were 

just talking before the hearing that what we want to do is, because 

it is so stunning—— 

Dr. GOSAR. Yes. 

Mr. WOOD [continuing]. The before and after, we said there are 

tons of before-and-after shots we can share with you. But what 

would be really powerful would be to take a drone and fly over one 

of those orange streams, and then construct some passive wetland 

treatment systems as we do, and then fly over that same stream. 

And the result is stunning. I mean the water goes from yellow to 

clear. 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, not just beginning and end, but during. I mean 

time lapse, the scientific expose ́s that show how it is done, you 

know? There are inquisitive minds out there that want to see that, 

and I think that is kind of a teaching tool that we miss if we don’t. 

Mr. WOOD. I agree with you. And knowing your passion for fly 

fishing, there is also a benefit at the end of the line at the end of 

the day. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. GOSAR. Absolutely, absolutely. 

Mr. Stefanko and Mr. Wood, once again, can the issue of landowner liability be addressed with the MOUs developed by the 

states, or through the contracts established by the states with 

landowners granting access to their property? 

Mr. Stefanko first. 

Mr. STEFANKO. I believe that could be addressed through maybe 

a standardized access agreement that could be shared with them 

that would then be acceptable to be registered to get the Federal 

Good Sam. We could maybe potentially draft that agreement such 

that when we would submit this MOU to EPA for their approval, 

31 

that it would satisfy the concerns that the property owner has 

signed the proper access, meets all the requirements, and 

addresses the concerns on liability. 

Dr. GOSAR. Mr. Wood? 

Mr. WOOD. I agree. We have some experience with this. It was 

mentioned earlier by Mr. Lowenthal about hardrock mining. We 

worked with the EPA during the Bush administration to develop 

a so-called Good Samaritan agreement for cleanup of hardrock 

mines that are implicated by CERCLA, and they came up with a 

standard policy that we now use with other landowners around the 

West. 

So, I am very confident that we can come up with something 

similar here. 

Dr. GOSAR. I just want to compliment you, Mr. Wood, and your 

organization, because it is stellar, what it starts out with and 

what—the end of the line, when it is tugging on your fly, it makes 

a wonderful impact. 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you, sir. 

Dr. GOSAR. I appreciate it. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, for his 

5 minutes. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Reclaiming 

abandoned coal mines and addressing mine draining is a huge 

issue in my Commonwealth. 

Virginia has over $421 million in priority sites waiting to be reclaimed, yet this year Virginia received less than $4 million in 

AML grants. At that rate, we are looking at over a century to deal 

with these sites, and that does not even count the additional environmental damage that is caused by mountain-top-removal mining, 

which has already flattened at least 67 mountains in southwest 

Virginia. 

So, naturally, I am interested in any solution such as Mr. 

LaHood’s bill that can help speed up the pace of this cleanup, as 

well as help the people of southwestern Virginia and other coal 

communities who are struggling with high unemployment and 

polluted water. 

Unfortunately, the President’s budget announced yesterday 

would do nothing but hurt the people who need the most help. His 

new proposed budget eliminates funding for the Appalachian 

Regional Commission, cuts programs for health, clean water, clean 

air programs. In short, this proposed budget is callous and shortsighted, especially of the people who live in our coal communities. 

Thankfully, the Congress has taken more interest in the welfare 

of the people of Appalachia, particularly through the bipartisan 

pilot program to reclaim abandoned coal mines in a way that provides economic development opportunities. This year the program 

was expanded to include Virginia, which will receive $10 million to 

facilitate these sorts of community-driven projects that have an 

economic development nexus. 

A little while ago we heard in this Subcommittee on the 

RECLAIM Act, which would make this pilot project permanent. 

And there are some changes that I think could be made to the 

RECLAIM Act and to this bill, but together they are a very 

32 

powerful combination to provide critically-needed investment into 

the economy and the environment of southwest Virginia. 

So, Mr. Kay and Mr. Wood, could you give any concrete examples 

of the impact these bills might have on Virginia, and how these 

bills could act to improve the health and economic prospects of the 

people of the coal fields? 

Mr. KAY. Yes, we worked with a mining engineering firm last 

year to look at all the possibilities of RECLAIM in southwest 

Virginia. And one example in the city of Norton, there is a 2-milelong river walk, they call it the River Walk Project they are working on. It goes through an old coal processing facility that has some 

acid mine drainage issues and it is on the AML inventory. They are 

trying to create a river walk through that, get that cleaned up. 

And then, just across the street from that, they also have a 

highwall that is right in the middle of what should be a really good 

commercial development area. They are hoping to clean all that up, 

invest some additional funds, and really turn around the entire city 

of Norton. So, those are some of the exciting things that are going 

on, but it goes well beyond that, and we are very excited about the 

pilot money now going to Virginia. 

Mr. BEYER. If I can add to that, my friend, Jack Kennedy, is the 

clerk of the court in Norton, and is trying to make Norton and Wise 

County the UVA capital of America, if not the world, so I hope the 

RECLAIM funds help to do that. 

Mr. KAY. He has had no small part in making that happen, along 

with Congressman Griffith. 

Mr. BEYER. Yes, thanks. 

Mr. Wood, do you have any insight, and not just the Virginia coal 

fields, but coal fields in general? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, I will start with Pennsylvania because, again, 

of the state Good Samaritan protection that they have offered. We 

have been able to do—there are over 250 active reclamation 

projects that are ongoing across the state, but one in particular, 

that I think has relevance for places like Virginia and other parts 

of Appalachia, is in the Babb Creek drainage. 

And there, the Babb Creek Watershed Association, one of these 

local watershed associations that has membership—TU members 

are a part of it—they worked to clean up over 14 miles of stream 

that is now a wild trout fishery. It was historically a dead, red 

stream, and now it is 14 miles of destination wild trout fishery. 

And people are coming there now to fish these waters that they 

had never been able to fish before. 

That is the kind of thing that we can promote all across 

Appalachia—and not just Appalachia, all across the country. 

Mr. BEYER. Great. Thank you all very much. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the 

gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce, for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the hearing 

on the bill today, and appreciate the input from both sides. 

I was listening to the opening comments of the Ranking Member 

and then the follow-up questions, and my read is that you are open 

to the idea, but this bill might need some manipulation. 

33 

Mr. Chairman, I just think that is ultra-important. I might not 

have the same reservations about the exclusion on the states 

having some right, but if we could provide that protection in the 

language of the bill—and I talked to Mr. LaHood—I think it is imperative that we give as much assurance across the aisle, get this 

thing as bipartisan as we can, because it has been such a divisive 

issue. And it is such a big issue for us states that have mining interests that I would gladly work to see if we could accommodate. 

I would yield to the Ranking Member to make comments about 

that. I don’t want to put words in your mouth. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Absolutely. What we are talking about is the 

clarity in the language, and we don’t believe that the issues that 

we are raising go in any way against the intent of the bill, and we 

want to work. We just want to make sure, as some of the witnesses 

have pointed out, that they do add some needed clarity—— 

Mr. PEARCE. Absolutely. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL [continuing]. In understanding what that section 

really was, and what is appropriate. 

And I agree with you, this should be a bipartisan bill and we 

would like to work with you. 

Mr. PEARCE. If the gentleman would yield just a bit further—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. I yield back. 

Mr. PEARCE. One of the things that affects us is Homestake Mine 

in my district, and they have been remediating for years. The EPA 

is thinking about changing the standard to where they would have 

to remediate naturally occurring minerals, and that seems like an 

untenable position. Is that something that you are open to 

discussing, too? Again—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Yes, I think we can—— 

Mr. PEARCE. I am not trying to catch you on a corner, I am just 

saying that—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. I think we should be discussing that. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. I would be open to discussing that, absolutely. 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, and that is probably—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. We are not going to commit right now, but that 

is something that we can really clarify. 

Mr. PEARCE. And I think that the company should have to 

remediate all the way that they can, but then it gets down to this— 

if you get to 95 percent and you cannot get any further, if you get 

into the naturally occurring, then we should have some further 

discussion. 

But if the gentleman is open to it, then I will commit that we 

will work—and Mr. LaHood—be happy to work on this. And I 

thank the gentleman for his comments. 

Mr. Stefanko, have you run into the problem I am discussing 

with the Homestake Mine in my district, that the government 

might change the game after you are in? And what have you all 

done about that? It is particularly thorny, because I was there 

visiting on the site about a year ago, and they expressed, OK, we 

are getting close. And now it looks like it may never end, because 

the minerals that they are trying to work on, some are naturally 

occurring. 

34 

So, if you could tell me a little bit of your experience, that would 

be valuable. 

Mr. STEFANKO. I am familiar with both the active and the abandoned, because I oversee both programs. On the active side, we 

have run into the issue that you are bringing up. But when we permit the site, we do a characterization of what that water should 

look like. And that would include historically what it was and what 

it naturally should be. But we have run into instances like that. 

On the AMD side, not so much. We know what the major constituents are that impact the streams to get them to recover. And 

when we go forward with a lot of these AMD projects, which are 

done through our Good Samaritan projects, which enhance our program, like I said earlier, we are getting back probably about 90 

percent of what it should be sometimes. But doing nothing versus 

getting back 90 percent, to us, is a—— 

Mr. PEARCE. If I can jump in here before the last minute runs 

out, how about the expertise? Do you find that you all have developed enough expertise to not need the Feds on site, or is that something that you all think is very difficult? Again, I am thinking 

about for a state like New Mexico. 

Can you develop the local expertise, or is that Federal oversight 

needed and desired? Tell me a little bit about that. 

Mr. STEFANKO. We have a great internal expertise, as well as 

along with some of our sister states. The addressing of acid mine 

drainage and treating acid mine drainage has a long history of improving to the point where we are today. 

And part of that does include a lot of our watershed groups who 

have engaged consultants and companies that are aware of how to 

treat it in various manners, and what we have known over the 

years. We have internal, but we also do external. 

I would say we, at the state of Pennsylvania—I would feel very 

confident that we do have the expertise. And we do reach out to 

our Federal partner, OSM—there is a lot of key staff in the OSM, 

at least—we deal with in PA—that have that knowledge with regards to the treatment of acid mine drainage, and we work with 

them a lot, as well. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that and I yield back. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson, for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Chairman, thank you so much, and I want to say 

thank you to the author of this bill. As a Member of Congress that 

has over $442 million in AML liabilities in a state that has 

$5 billion in AML liabilities, we do take great pride in the fact that 

much of the mining that fueled both the Industrial Revolution and 

the manufacturing of tanks and artillery to defend our Nation in 

World War I and World War II, a lot of that coal came out of 

Pennsylvania’s Fifth District. But we also know that we have a responsibility now to get those mining sites that really did not have 

the technology and the insight cleaned up. 

First of all, Mr. Woods, thank you for being here. I am real proud 

that my home TU chapter possesses the Golden Trout Award, 

Spring Creek Chapter, and I think that is Amy sitting behind you 

there. You all have been a great partner in my work on this 

35 

Committee, and in the Agriculture Committee with the 

Conservation and Forestry Watershed Subcommittee, the past 

three terms. 

I have enjoyed spending time out on these sites. It is amazing 

to watch, whether it is passive or active, processes are put in place, 

the reclamation that occurs to streams that run orange to be reclaimed into—and these are active mining sites, they are some of 

the best trout waters that I have experienced, and let alone the replanning on those sites that are just a magnet for game. It is a 

good place to hunt and fish. 

Mr. Wood, can you discuss the variety of non-governmental entities that currently partner or would be encouraged to do so under 

this bill? And does this include both non-profit and private commercial businesses? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, I think if the bill were to pass, you would see 

a groundswell of support for doing a lot of this kind of abandoned 

mine cleanup that, right now—I mean Pennsylvania sort of is a 

bastion, it is a hotbed of these watershed groups, because of the 

protection the state offers, that are out there doing restoration. 

As I mentioned earlier, there are 250 active projects that are 

happening right now in the West Branch Watershed alone. We 

have provided technical assistance to something like 75 different 

watershed associations who are actively working on treatment 

projects. 

I think this would basically free up people like private landowners, who are just thoroughly intimidated by liability right now, 

maybe owners of hunt clubs, or things like that, that have a vested 

interest in conservation, they want to do the right thing, they just 

do not want the liability implications. 

I think more local communities would probably get involved than 

have been involved historically. I mean there is something in this 

for everyone. Anyone who has an interest in clean water, and anyone, presumably, who wants to maintain the value of their property, should have an interest in clean water, I think, would be an 

advocate, a supporter, and a partner in this. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I think the term you used, groundswell, is a 

great way to describe it. Because I would see that, as well. It is 

exciting. 

Mr. Stefanko, thank you for your service to the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania over many years, going back to your internship 

with PennDOT, but mostly with the Department of Environmental 

Protection. 

My question for you is, does Pennsylvania allow for re-mining 

under the Good Samaritan program, and have companies sought to 

conduct a re-mining along with Good Samaritan reclamation 

projects? 

Mr. STEFANKO. We do not allow re-mining under the Good 

Samaritan Act. All of our re-mining is done under the Title V 

program. We have an extensive re-mining program that works very 

well, and it is all under the regulatory arm. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, a follow-up question, since Pennsylvania 

already has a program in effect, will this legislation have any unintended consequences in Pennsylvania, as a result of that? 

36 

Mr. STEFANKO. None, to my knowledge. If anything, it will further enhance Pennsylvania’s program. I think we can increase from 

the 79 and get a lot more groups and communities interested in 

doing these types of projects, which is only a benefit, because as 

you well know of the problems we have in PA, and we do not have 

the funding to do all of those. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Right. 

Mr. Kay, in your testimony you mentioned the issue of re-mining 

and stated your opinion that incidental coal removal can facilitate 

reclamation by reducing costs without causing more harm to the 

environment. Can you explain what you mean when you referred 

to incidental coal removal in your testimony, please? 

Mr. KAY. Yes, thank you, Congressman. In some cases during 

reclamation there is really no way to do it without removing a little 

bit of coal, especially for some large highwalls. There is really no 

way around it, so you are going to get that. 

I believe in the state of Pennsylvania they have a good way of 

defining incidental coal removal versus re-mining. I think that is 

a difficult thing to do, and I hope one that we do not have to tackle 

through this bill, but that is still something to make clear that it 

is important. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman and now recognize the 

gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman, for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 

witnesses, and thank you to my colleague, Mr. LaHood, for proposing this legislation. I agree, there is no reason this should not 

be a bipartisan piece of legislation. 

I am reminded of the hearings we had in the Full Committee on 

the Gold King Mine spill last year, and that is probably a crash 

course on how not to do mine reclamation. I was very disappointed 

as we got into the details on that about how there were no professional engineers involved in the planning process, there were no 

drawings or documentation. And we were talking about liability 

here, and, ultimately, I still don’t think anybody has been held accountable for that mine spill last year. 

But in reading this bill in Section 3, I do want to point out there 

has been a question about liability, but one thing that is very positive, it says, ‘‘A description of the proposed project, including any 

engineering plans which must bear the seal of a professional 

engineer that must be submitted.’’ 

So, when you do the proper planning and the engineering on the 

front end, you are mitigating the liability and reducing the amount 

of liability that you actually would have. We may need to do some 

more work, but I think this is definitely moving in the right 

direction. 

When we are thinking about the Gold King Mine, and we talk 

about acidic water, I know that is a problem that can be there in 

treating mine drainage, and that is one of the most challenging aspects of mine reclamation. Those states face not only technical 

challenges, but also compliance challenges under the law. 

Mr. Stefanko, how has Pennsylvania handled the problem of 

treating acid mine drainage? 

37 

Mr. STEFANKO. We have an internal abandoned mine land program, where we get the Federal grants. We do our own projects to 

treat the acid mine drainage, which is done through our own process, where we have in-house engineering, or we consult that out. 

Projects are designed and built all under the Commonwealth rules 

and regs. 

We also have this piece here, which is where we have a lot of 

our non-government entities and watershed groups that have a lot 

of interest in it. We have a number of grant programs. One of our 

biggest and probably most well-known is the Growing Greener 

program, where groups provide us a project that is submitted, it is 

reviewed and done through a review process, including a technical 

review, and whereby then we would provide funding back to them 

for that watershed group then to build a treatment system to address the AMD. 

It can be done either passively or actively. Actively, obviously, is 

more costly, because of the O&M costs. So, there is the passive, but 

we look at all of these different aspects when we are actually going 

to design and/or provide grant funds and/or monies or look at these 

projects that we get under the Good Samaritan Act, to ensure that 

they are being properly designed and built, and address the type 

of acid mine drainage that it is. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Yes. And, Mr. Wood, same question to you 

about how has your organization approached such projects. And I 

will say that Arkansas may not be well known for trout fishing, but 

we have probably have some of the best trout fishing in the country, some of the nicest trout streams there, and really, if you want 

to catch really big trout, come to Arkansas. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WOOD. I think you had the U.S. record largest trout caught 

out of the white, actually. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. The brown trout. 

Mr. WOOD. Yes, a big brown trout. It was caught by, like, a 10- 

year-old on a Snoopy rod, or something. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Something like that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WOOD. So, as Mr. Stefanko said, we work almost as an adjunct to the state in our cleanup. In Pennsylvania, we will submit 

a plan to them, it will be reviewed, and they will approve it. 

Largely, what we have done in places like Kettle Creek are passive treatments, where we have constructed wetlands that we 

would sweeten with lime, and then we divert the stream through 

these constructed wetlands that then sweeten the water so that by 

the time it returns to the stream, its pH is in good shape. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And my understanding is, even with some of 

the best water treatment techniques available, the stream sometimes still cannot meet the Clean Water Act standards. Can you 

explain that? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, there are—you know, I am a political science 

major, you may not want me to do that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WOOD. But typically what happens—fairly low cost, this isn’t 

intensively engineered stuff. I mean for several hundred thousand 

dollars, you might be able to get to 80 or 90 percent improvement, 

38 

but it might be a couple million dollars to get that additional 

increment. And—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So, you get some diminishing returns, but even 

though they might not meet the Clean Water Act standards, they 

can still support wildlife habitat? 

Mr. WOOD. And naturally reproducing trout populations. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Which is a pretty high standard. 

Mr. WOOD. That is exactly right. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. I yield back. 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman and now recognize the 

gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton, for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize that I had to 

step out, so if I get a little redundant, I hope you will forgive me. 

I found it interesting, when we have had the conversation going 

on, and understand the admirable draft that my colleague, Mr. 

LaHood, is putting forward, to be able to address it. It points specifically to a lot of challenges that we are also facing, in terms of 

hardrock mine cleanup, as well, with Good Samaritan legislation 

that we are trying to be able to put forward. 

So, I would like to ask Mr. Wood a couple of questions, if you 

would. And if you want the actual best-tasting fish caught out of 

a stream, those come out of Colorado. 

Mr. Wood, in your testimony you stated that, as an NGO, your 

organization is not well suited to be able to apply for or to hold a 

discharge permit. Can you go into maybe a little more detail for us, 

and for everyone, why that is the case? 

Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir. And I want to thank you, Mr. Tipton, for 

your leadership on the hardrock side of this equation in Colorado, 

as well. And, just for the record, it was not me that said anything 

about fish tasting. 

Mr. TIPTON. OK. 

Mr. WOOD. We are big believers in catch and release at Trout 

Unlimited. 

So, NPDES permits, the non-point discharge elimination system, 

I think. Is that right? They are very expensive to get, and often 

they are associated with perpetual treatment systems, which a 

non-profit entity like mine is not well suited to have. And frankly, 

just the liability associated with holding such a permit is a profound disincentive for groups like TU to do that. We have never 

even tried, for example. 

Mr. TIPTON. And to clarify, just to be able to do the right thing, 

to try and be able to clean up some of these areas. 

I was a little curious on the slide that you put up with the passive system. And it actually goes to my colleague, Mr. Westerman’s 

question, in terms of being able to comply with the Clean Water 

Act. That is not often the case, is it, with the passive systems? Is 

that effectively seeking the perfect to opposition to the good, 

and—— 

Mr. WOOD. Right. 

Mr. TIPTON [continuing]. Actually impacting our ability to move 

the ball forward to be able to clean up some of these streams, and 

to be able to create a better environment? 

Mr. WOOD. I think that is right, sir. I mean, again, remember, 

we are not talking about places where we can even hold people 

39 

accountable any longer. And this is especially the case with some 

of your western hardrock mines. Those people are 100 years gone. 

But to the extent that we can make it easier for people who want 

to make the world a better place, who want to make the water 

cleaner for their kids, I mean that is something everyone should be 

interested in doing. 

Mr. TIPTON. You know—— 

Mr. WOOD. And I think that is what this bill does. 

Mr. TIPTON. I agree with you. And talking about it, do you believe, when we are talking about these passive systems, that an 

AML treatment system, passive water treatment system, should— 

when we are going to materially improve those water-quality 

systems, that it should be a point of discharge for compliance purposes under the Clean Water Act? Would that be useful? 

Mr. WOOD. We would like to see some language inserted into the 

bill—and this came up a little earlier, I am not sure if you were 

here or not—where we talk about substantial or significant improvements to water quality. There should be an upward trend, 

anyway, there should be an improvement. And that is what this is 

all about. 

Mr. TIPTON. Great. Thank you so much. And I didn’t mean to 

imply that you were eating the fish. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. TIPTON. So, Mr. Stefanko, I thought it was pretty curious, 

listening to you, and I appreciate your comments. In your testimony, you said 90 percent—where you achieved that cleanup to 

where it should be, we should be able to go forward. Do you have 

anything to be able to add to some of these treatment systems, 

those points of discharge, how that is going to be a positive for us 

with the passive systems? 

Mr. STEFANKO. I am not sure I actually understand what you are 

asking. 

Mr. TIPTON. Well, do you have anything to be able to add on the 

treatment systems as a point of discharge, in terms of some of the 

comments that we—— 

Mr. STEFANKO. Basically, when I said about achieving 

90 percent, one of the things—and I think the Chairman might 

have mentioned this—is the technology has advanced, and we have 

seen it evolve even in the many years since I started in the 

Abandoned Mine Land Program. 

If we can go out there with a current technology and we can get 

to 85, 90 percent, maybe next year something else is going to come 

along that will get us to the other 10 percent. 

It has been an ongoing thing in Pennsylvania, as well as all of 

our sister states, that as technology improves, we are finding better 

and better ways to treat the acid mine drainage, and doing it in 

a more cost-efficient manner. And being that we have such a large 

problem, we need to continue to do that. 

So, if we can get to a point now, and knowing that maybe next 

year something else will come along better that we could either add 

to that system or replace that system in the future to get us to the 

end point, that is where we would like to go. 

Mr. TIPTON. Great. Thank you. And I am just about out of time, 

Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

40 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. But I have a question here. 

How big was that fish? 

Mr. WESTERMAN. That brown trout? 

Dr. GOSAR. Yes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. It was, what, 40 pounds or something? 

Mr. WOOD. I want to—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Massive, yes. 

Mr. WOOD. I think it was 40-ish. But, you know, we are anglers, 

so it could be a couple pounds on either side. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Was it that big? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WOOD. Oh, no, it was as big as the child that caught it. 

Dr. GOSAR. I know, but typically, a fisherman always says, ‘‘Hey, 

I caught the big one, let it go,’’ and they are really telling you that 

it is this size—a deception. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. We have this amazing tool called Google. I will 

get back to you. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. GOSAR. OK. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Dr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While we are on it, I will 

say that we live on Lake Oconee in Georgia. And just last week 

while we were here, my wife sent me pictures of five fish that she 

caught that day, one of which she cleaned, fried it up, and ate it. 

And I would challenge anyone on the best tasting fish. She knows 

how to do it extremely well. 

But I do thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. And, 

as you are aware, I partnered with my good friend, Mr. Lowenthal, 

on the Bureau of Land Management Foundation Act, and that was 

a great step forward for the bipartisan goal of protecting our environment through the cleanup of mines on BLM lands. And I thank 

the gentleman for that. 

And I think pretty much we all agree that we believe God gave 

us this land that we live in, and we should work it to our benefit. 

But at the same time, we have the enormous responsibility to be 

good stewards and to be good caretakers of the land that we love. 

I just want to say thank you to my good friend, Mr. LaHood, on 

his efforts on this bill that will help the process of cleanup from 

a different angle. 

And again, the Ranking Member, thank you for your willingness 

to work on adjustments and clarifications on this, so that we can 

work together in this regard. 

I do want to go back on some of Mr. Tipton’s comments, particularly regarding the EPA. I understand that they have attempted to 

solve some of the problems posed by the Clean Water Act on the 

compliance side of things. In fact, there were a couple of guidance 

memoranda explaining under what conditions they would waive enforcement; and states also have engaged with the EPA to address 

some of the compliance challenges and some of the issues and 

guidelines, outlines, how they can improve water quality. 

So, kind of within all this context, Mr. Wood, let me ask you. 

Although the EPA has put out this guidance, why haven’t the 

states—why hasn’t this gone anywhere? Why isn’t there any 

compliance relief? 

41 

Mr. WOOD. Are you speaking specifically about hardrock mines, 

or coal mines? 

Dr. HICE. Well, specifically with the acid mine drainage abatement process, all that. It just seems to not be getting the relief 

needed. 

Mr. WOOD. So, I want to commend the EPA, because we did work 

well with them to come up with this so-called Good Samaritan provision, which does relieve a lot of the liability associated with 

cleaning up so-called dry sites for hardrock mines that are regulated under CERCLA. 

And those cleanups are relatively straightforward, too. I mean it 

often involves simply digging a ditch, lining it, bulldozing material—acid mine leaching material—into the ditch, covering it with 

parent material, and then putting an impermeable liner over it and 

digging a French drain. Again, it is not complicated work. 

And that is 80 percent of the problem with dry sites. Dry sites 

represent 80 percent of the problem in the West. The really tough 

problems, though, are associated with these draining adits that implicate the Clean Water Act. And EPA has tried to offer guidance 

on that front, as well. But at least my organization did not find 

enough comfort in that, that the liability really was significant 

enough that we would want to engage. 

Dr. HICE. Well, that is really what I am trying to get toward. 

So, can citizens still sue? I mean the Good Samaritan does not 

cover everything. 

Mr. WOOD. Right, that is right. Citizens can still sue under the 

Clean Water Act. Citizen suits are a part of that law. 

Dr. HICE. For projects that do not meet the standards of the 

Clean Water Act. 

Mr. WOOD. Right, which is one reason why groups like mine have 

not, to date, stepped up and taken advantage of that guidance that 

EPA has put out there to try to make it easier to do those 

cleanups. 

Dr. HICE. So, we have this huge hurdle in the way—what is it 

going to take to get over that? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, I think, as we are doing right now with coal, 

some good-faith conversations to make very minor adjustments to 

the laws that are really important, and that TU really supports. 

I mean, make no mistake about it. We are the most full-throated 

advocate for the Clean Water Act there is. But just some minor 

tweaks that make it easier to make improvements to water quality 

that may not be perfect, I think, is what we are looking for. 

Dr. HICE. So, although there have been attempts to clarify with 

the EPA, there is still work to do to provide legal cover. Is that the 

bottom line? 

Mr. WOOD. Yes. 

Dr. HICE. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. GOSAR. I think the gentleman is looking for trust. Trust is 

a series of promises kept. And I think we are sitting on that application. That is why we want to see visual examples of that, because 

that goes a long way. 

So, I applaud the gentleman for his questions, I applaud the gentleman for bringing the legislation forward, and the cooperative 

spirit that we see today. 

42 

I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the 

Members for their questions. The members of the Committee may 

have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask 

you to respond to these in writing. 

Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must 

submit witness questions within 3 business days following the 

hearing. And the hearing record will be held open for 10 business 

days for these responses. 

If there is no further business—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman? 

Dr. GOSAR. Yes? 

Mr. WESTERMAN. For the record, can I respond to your question? 

The world record German Brown Trout—— 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. GOSAR. I want to hear this. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Was 40 pounds and 4 ounces, caught from the 

Little Red River in Arkansas in 1992. 

Dr. GOSAR. Wow. That is a fish. 

Well, having been up in Alaska, that is the only thing I was 

going to comment on, is his consistency. 

So, without further objection, the Subcommittee stands 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ