Opinion ID: 501787
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Puzzling Contradiction of Section 508(a)(13)'s

Text: Permitting Requirements 330 NWF raised another challenge to the Secretary's new regulation, arguing that Sec. 508(a)(13) independently requires underground mine operators to replace damaged water supplies. That section, describing the information that must be included in the reclamation plan accompanying a permit application, requires, in the degree of detail necessary to demonstrate that reclamation required by the State or Federal program can be accomplished: 331 a detailed description of the measures to be taken during the mining and reclamation process to assure the protection of:(A) the quality of surface and ground water systems, both on- and off-site, from adverse effects of the mining and reclamation process; 332 (B) the rights of present users to such water; and 333 (C) the quantity of surface and ground water systems, both on- and off-site, from adverse effects of the mining and reclamation process or to provide alternative sources of water where such protection of quantity cannot be assured. 334 SMCRA Sec. 508(a)(13). NWF argued, and the district court agreed, that the permit information requirements of Sec. 508 apply to underground mines. The court rejected NWF's further argument, however, that Sec. 508(a)(13)(C) should be read to require underground mine operators to replace damaged water supplies. Admitting that the language of that section could pose a puzzling contradiction to Sec. 717(b)'s provisions requiring only surface mine operators to replace damaged water, the court read Sec. 508 merely to require a description of steps to be taken to implement actual performance standards in the Act. PSMRL II (Round III), 620 F.Supp. at 1533. We affirm. 335 Section 508 is essentially an information-gathering provision. It seeks to ensure that regulatory authorities have sufficient information on hand when they evaluate permit applications. Although the House report described the reclamation plan required by Sec. 508 as a blueprint for action, H.R.REP. NO. 218, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 91 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 593, 628, it never suggested that Sec. 508 independently imposed substantive performance standards. Rather, the House report identified the lack of sufficient data during the review process as the evil that Sec. 508 was designed to address: 336 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 other interested parties based upon adequate data.... environmental factors tend to receive short shrift. To meet this problem the bill delineates in detail the type of information required in permit applications in section 507 and 508 and the criteria for assessing the merits of the application in section 510. 337 Id. (emphasis added). The Conference Committee report similarly referred to the final version of Sec. 508 as specif[ying] that a wide range of information and analysis be included in the reclamation plan. H.R.CONF.REP. NO. 493, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 103 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 593, 734-35. We can find no support for the claim that an independent performance requirement was implied by Sec. 508. 338 A more credible claim could be made that Sec. 508(a)(13)(C), by requiring both surface and underground mine operators to provide a description of their plans to provide alternate sources of water where protection of the water supply cannot be assured, authorizes the Secretary to do something with that information, i.e., to require underground mine operators to replace damaged water supplies, or to allow state regulatory authorities to require from underground mine operators, as a permit condition, commitments to replace damaged water supplies. But even under that interpretation, the Secretary would not be compelled to impose a water replacement requirement on underground mine operators, since SMCRA clearly affords the Secretary wide discretion in the application of permit requirements to underground mines. Section 516(d) directs the Secretary to accommodate the distinct difference between surface and underground coal mining, through modifications to permit and bond requirements otherwise applicable to both types of mines. In fact, Secretary Watt relied on that discretion to exempt underground mine operators from the information requirements of Sec. 508(a)(13)(C). 96 339