19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 112–429 

USE OF PAYMENTS UNDER SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 FOR NONCOAL RECLAMATION PROJECTS AND ACID 

MINE REMEDIATION 

APRIL 16, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 897] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (S. 897) to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 

Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have 

the authority to use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects and acid mine remediation programs, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and 

recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of S. 897 is to amend the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified States and 

Indian tribes have the authority to use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects and acid mine remediation programs. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

S. 897 seeks to clarify a provision of the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) that in the past has allowed 

uncertified states and tribes to use certain payments from the 

Abandoned Mine Land (AML) fund for high priority non-coal reclamation projects. High priority coal and non-coal AML sites are 

those that pose a serious threat to human health and safety. Problems with the provision arose after passage of the 2006 amendments to SMCRA through a Department of the Interior (DOI) Solicitor’s Opinion and the Office of Surface Mining’s (OSM) final rule 

issued for the 2006 amendments. DOI argued that because funds 

for the ‘‘prior balance replacement’’ funds were paid out of the genVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:32 Apr 18, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR429.XXX HR429

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

eral fund of the U.S. Treasury and not the AML trust fund, the 

funds were not eligible to be used for non-coal AML projects. 

As further explained by the author of the measure, Senator Jeff 

Bingaman (D–NM) (on identical legislation introduced in the 111th 

Congress): 

[This bill is] important to public health and safety and 

the environment in the West. This legislation addresses a 

recent interpretation by the Department of the Interior, 

DOI, which restricts the ability of states to use certain 

funds under the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Program 

authorized by SMCRA, for non-coal mine reclamation. 

The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 contained 

amendments to SMCRA reauthorizing collection of an 

AML fee on coal produced in the U.S. and making certain 

modifications to the AML program. Under this program, 

which is administered by DOI, funds are expended to reclaim abandoned mine lands, with top priority for protecting public health, safety, general welfare, and property 

and restoration of land and water resources adversely affected by past mining practices. The program is largely directed to abandoned coal mine reclamation, but under section 409 of SMCRA, limited funds have been available to 

address non-coal mine sites. 

Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior has interpreted the amendments in a manner that limits the ability 

of western states to use certain funds under SMCRA to address significant problems relating to non-coal abandoned 

mines, despite the fact that these funds had previously 

been available for these purposes. 

Section 409 of SMCRA, provides that states may address 

public health and safety hazards at abandoned mine sites, 

both coal and non-coal. Western states such as New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah, have prioritized the use of AML 

funds to undertake the most pressing reclamation work on 

both coal and non-coal mine sites. While activities on noncoal sites have consumed a relatively insignificant portion 

of the funding provided for the overall AML program, the 

results in terms of public health and safety in these states 

is considerable, and there is significant work yet to be 

done. For example, New Mexico alone has over 15,000 remaining mine openings with a vast majority of these being 

non-coal. All AML-related fatalities in the State in the last 

few decades have been at non-coal mine sites. 

I disagree with this interpretation by DOI. This result 

was not the intention of those of us working on the 

SMCRA amendments, and I believe the interpretation is in 

error. First, OSM’s interpretation disregards the fact that 

section 409 was left un-amended by the Congress. Furthermore, this interpretation is inconsistent with assurances 

repeatedly given to us by OSM during the consideration of 

the legislation that non-coal work could continue to be undertaken with these AML funds. Finally, the interpretation has the unacceptable result of requiring states to devote funds to low priority coal sites while leaving dangerous non-coal sites unaddressed. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

S. 897 corrects the problem created by DOI by modifying the language of SMCRA to clarify that funding would be available for noncoal reclamation as it was prior to the passage of the 2006 amendments. Under the proposed legislation, western, non-certified 

States could continue to use the payments from their ‘‘prior balance 

replacement’’ funds (previously un-appropriated state share balances) for non-coal reclamation. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

S. 897 was introduced on May 5, 2011, by Senator Jeff Bingaman 

(D–NM). On November 2, 2011, the bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent. The bill was then referred to the House Committee 

on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. On February 17, 

2011, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the House companion 

bill, H.R. 785, sponsored by Congressman Stevan Pearce (R–NM). 

On February 29, 2012, the Full Natural Resources Committee met 

to consider S. 897. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources was discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman Edward Markey (D–MA) offered amendment designated .003 to the 

bill; the amendment was not adopted by a bipartisan roll call vote 

of 14 to 30, as follows: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 4 here HR429.001
5 

The bill was then ordered favorably reported to the House of 

Representatives by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII 

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

S. 897—An act to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified states and Indian 

tribes have the authority to use certain payments for certain 

noncoal reclamation projects and acid mine remediation programs 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 897 would have no significant 

net impact on the federal budget over the 2012–2022 period. Because enacting S. 897 could affect direct spending (increasing it in 

some years and decreasing it in others), pay-as-you-go procedures 

apply. Enacting S. 897 would not affect revenues. S. 897 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on 

state, local, or tribal governments. 

Each year, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) provides more 

than $300 million in grants and payments to states and Indian 

tribes to reclaim land and water resources that have been degraded 

by past mining activities. Because such grants and payments are 

not subject to annual appropriations, they are considered direct 

spending. States and tribes that currently have backlogs of coal 

reclamation projects—so-called uncertified states—are obligated 

under current law to use a portion of those grants exclusively for 

certain coal projects. 

S. 897 would allow uncertified states and tribes to use those 

funds for other types of reclamation projects not related to coal 

mining. CBO expects that this change would increase direct spending—by up to $2 million a year—in the near term by accelerating 

spending of reclamation grants. However, that short-term increase 

would be offset by reduced spending in later years. On balance, 

CBO expects that implementing the legislation would result in no 

net change in direct spending over the 2012–2022 period. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

Under current law, once states and tribes certify that they have 

completed all outstanding coal reclamation projects, they become 

eligible for additional payments from OSM. Under S. 897, some 

states and tribes may substitute noncoal projects for coal projects 

in the near term and delay their certification status, which would 

delay certain payments that would increase direct spending under 

current law. Based on information from OSM and some of the affected states and tribes, CBO expects that no uncertified states will 

become certified over the next 10 years, and CBO estimates that 

any delay in making payments to states that become certified 

would not affect direct spending over the 2012–2022 period. 

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting direct 

spending or revenues. S. 897 would have no net effect on direct 

spending over the 2012–2022 period. The bill would increase direct 

spending from certain payments to states and tribes to reclaim 

abandoned mines in the near term, but those increases would be 

offset by decreased direct spending for those activities in later 

years. The changes in the deficit that are subject to pay-as-you-go 

procedures are shown in the following table. 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2012– 

2017 

2012– 

2022 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-YouGo Impact ............. 0 1 2 2 ¥2 ¥2 ¥1 0 0 0 0 1 0 

On August 5, 2011, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 897, 

a bill to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

of 1977 to clarify that uncertified states and Indian tribes have the 

authority to use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation 

projects and acid mine remediation programs, as ordered reported 

by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on 

July 14, 2011. The two versions of the legislation are similar, and 

their estimated costs are the same over the 2012–2022 period; however, because we now assume that S. 897 will be enacted during 

fiscal year 2012, we estimate that implementing it would have no 

significant impact on direct spending until 2013. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required by 

clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

this bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 897 would have no significant net 

impact on the federal budget over the 2012–2022 period. Because 

enacting S. 897 could affect direct spending (increasing it in some 

years and decreasing it in others), pay-as-you-go procedures apply. 

Enacting S. 897 would not affect revenues. 

S. 897 would allow uncertified states and tribes to use federal 

grant funds for other types of reclamation projects not related to 

coal mining. CBO expects that this change would increase direct 

spending—by up to $2 million a year—in the near term by accelVerDate Mar 15 2010 07:00 Apr 18, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR429.XXX HR429

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

erating spending of reclamation grants. However, that short-term 

increase would be offset by reduced spending in later years. On balance, CBO expects that implementing the legislation would result 

in no net change in direct spending over the 2012–2022 period. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes 

have the authority to use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects and acid mine remediation programs. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

This bill contains no unfunded mandates as defined under Public 

Law 104–4. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT 

OF 1977 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION 

* * * * * * * 

RECLAMATION FEE

SEC. 402. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(6)(A) Any State with an approved abandoned mine reclamation 

program pursuant to section 405 may receive and retain, without 

regard to the 3-year limitation referred to in paragraph (1)(D), up 

to 30 percent of the total of the grants made annually to the State 

under paragraphs (1) and (5) and section 411(h)(1) if those amounts 

are deposited into an acid mine drainage abatement and treatment 

fund established under State law, from which amounts (together 

with all interest earned on the amounts) are expended by the State 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

for the abatement of the causes and the treatment of the effects of 

acid mine drainage in a comprehensive manner within qualified 

hydrologic units affected by coal mining practices. 

* * * * * * * 

FILLING VOIDS AND SEALING TUNNELS

SEC. 409. (a) * * * 

(b) Funds available for use in carrying out the purpose of this 

section shall be limited to those funds which must be allocated to 

the respective States or Indian tribes under the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (5) of section 402(g) and section 411(h)(1). 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 411. CERTIFICATION. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(h) PAYMENTS TO STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) USE OF FUNDS.— (i) * * * 

(ii) UNCERTIFIED STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES.—A 

State or Indian tribe that has not made a certification 

under subsection (a) in which the Secretary has concurred shall use any amounts provided under this 

paragraph for the purposes described in øsection 403¿ 

section 402(g)(6), 403, or 409. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING