Opinion ID: 392158
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Congressional Intent and the Tradition of State Regulation

Text: 24 A major premise of appellant's argument is that Congress deliberately minimized the federal role in administration of the Act out of deference to state prerogatives. Appellant denies that the statute is based primarily on environmental concerns, and insists that an even more fundamental purpose of the Act ... is to preserve the federal structure of our nation and to leave with the states primary responsibility for this land-use regulation. 9 Congress' special solicitude for the states' traditional role in controlling local land use, appellant claims, prevented Congress from delegating to the Secretary authority to dictate permit information requirements to the states. 25 Our own examination of the Act and its legislative history reveals a very different congressional assessment of the tradition of state surface mining regulation. The legislative history contains significant expressions of congressional dissatisfaction with state mining regulation practices: 26 (D)espite claims from some quarters that state reclamation laws have improved so significantly that Federal mining standards are no longer needed, the hearing record abounds with evidence that this is simply not the case. For a variety of reasons, including the reluctance of the State to impose stringent controls on its own industry, serious abuses continue. 27 H.R.Rep.No. 218, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 58 (1977), reprinted in (1977) U.S.Code Cong. & Ad. News 593, 596. Congress preferred to leave primary governmental responsibility with the states because of the diversity in terrain, climate, biologic, chemical, and other physical conditions in areas subject to mining operations, Act § 101(f), but skepticism about the states' willingness to implement the federal program justified the Secretary's continuing oversight role. 28 While it is confident that the delegation of primary regulatory authority to the States will result in adequate State enforcement, the committee is also of the belief that a limited Federal oversight role as well as increased opportunity for citizens to participate in the enforcement program are necessary to assure that the old patterns of minimal enforcement are not repeated. 29 H.R.Rep.No. 218, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 129 (1977), reprinted in (1977) U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 593, 661. 30 Congress announced its willingness, wherever necessary, (to) exercise the full reach of Federal constitutional powers to insure the protection of the public interest through effective control of surface coal mining operations. Act § 102(m). Nationwide standards were essential in order to insure that competition in interstate commerce among sellers of coal produced in different States will not be used to undermine the ability of the several States to improve and maintain adequate standards on coal mining operations within their borders. Act § 101(g). 10 Congress' concern about the states' ability to withstand economic temptation extended to the very area of permit information with which we are dealing: 31 Experience has shown that without a thorough and comprehensive data base presented with the permit application, and absent analysis and review both by the agency and by other affected parties based upon adequate data, th(i)s judgment has often traditionally reflected the economic interest in expanding a State's mining industry. Valid environmental factors tend to receive short shrift. 32 H.R.Rep.No. 218, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 91 (1977), reprinted in (1977) U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 593, 627. 33 Thus, the legislative history of the Act, the declarations of congressional purpose it contains, and the allocation of authority it creates between the Secretary and the states confirm that Congress was not interested in perpetuating the existing tradition of state mining regulation, and that Congress saw the need for both federal standards and federal oversight to guarantee an effective change. Congress did not withhold powers that the Secretary might require in his efforts to safeguard federal interests. 11 34