Court Opinion

ID: 9852872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:38:07.453468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:36.099635
License: Public Domain

MAYNARD, Justice,
dissenting.
(Filed July 6, 2001)
I would affirm the circuit court’s order which ruled that DK Excavating is not re*412quired to obtain a surface mining permit under the facts of this case.
The circuit court was correct in holding that DK’s proposal to excavate, remove, and sell coal from its two-acre site does not come within the definition of “surface mining,” based upon the express exemption in W.Va. Code § 22 — 3—3(u)(2)(ii) (1997), of “[c]oal extraction authorized as an incidental part of development of land for commercial, residential, industrial, or civic use[.]” Unlike the majority, I am not convinced that this provision is automatically preempted by SMCRA.
The removal of the coal in question is de minimis. It concerns a small area and is incidental to the construction of an equipment shop. In light of these facts, I see no reason to make this a federal question.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.