Stream
Protection Rule -Mobile
FREE NEWS LINKS
HOME
SEARCH
Updates & changes ongoing ....
----
Although this site is https-secure, we cannot guarantee that it or any
provided links are safe; be sure your antivirus and other security systems are
up to date.
Also see: Environment; climate
change; Clean Power
Plan; Clean Water Act; coal; science; animals; health;
Jump to:
East Swan River;
2017; 2018; 2019;
2020;
Undated:
The Stream Protection Rule was a
United States federal regulation issued by the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement that went into effect
on January 19, 2017.[1]
These regulations implement Title V of the 1977
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), the focus of which were
the conditions for issuing permits to begin a mining operation. The original
regulations had been issued in 1979 and were updated in 1983. Litigation over
mountaintop removal mining required changes to the regulations, which were
issued in 2008. These regulations were in turn struck down by a judge after
litigation by environmental groups. The new regulations, the Stream Protection
Rule, were issued in January 2017.
They were a topic in the
2016 elections, with
Republican candidates for federal office saying that they would strike the
regulations down if they would be elected. In February 2017, the
Republican-controlled
Congress, through the
Congressional Review Act, passed a bill (a "resolution of disapproval") to
revoke the rule. President
Donald
Trump signed the legislation, repealing the rule.[2]
This left the status of regulations implementing the SMCRA unclear.
Subsequent to the revocation of the Stream Protection Rule
by the Trump administration, many scientists, when interviewed, said that it
would have had an insignificant impact on the activities of coal companies.[28]
Back to top
Moreover, the US
energy industry had generally reduced its use of coal in favor of cheaper
natural
gas and to a lesser extent
renewables, and analysts said that even if the Stream Protection Rule had
made coal more expensive for them, it would not have had much of an effect on
the industry; its revocation meant little to them as well.[29]
The revocation of these regulations left unclear what regulation would be used
to implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.[30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Protection_Rule
Undated: Stream Protection --
During the early to mid-20th Century, the village of
Hibbing, Minnesota opted to use the beautiful East Swan River
for a sewage dump,
since that was the least expensive option for getting rid of human waste from
the growing village. That
river flowed south through farming communities, emptying into the St.
Louis River which flows into Lake Superior. Farmers all along both rivers (not
to mention properties at Lake Superior itself) used the flow as a valuable source of water for themselves and their livestock, for bathing, washing clothes, swimming, for
irrigation into fields and gardens, and some struggled through the filthy waters
to float logs down to the Cloquet, Minnesota paper mills. The water was heavily
fouled with the stench of urine and fecal matter from thousands of people living
in and around the Hibbing area, resulting in a local nickname for the river of "Sh*t
Creek".
Back to top
Iron mines also used the river, dumping millions
of tons of iron ore tailings into the water. After Hibbing had to cease dumping
sewage in 1939, the river was still polluted because of the mines, and was a
deep red ore color, turning the flesh of fish a red-orange and therefore still making them
inedible.
The idea of regularly and purposely polluting any American stream for any reason
is in the editor's estimation reprehensible (except of course during emergency).
Today due to State legal restrictions against polluters, the East Swan River is
rather back to its natural state, although ongoing monitoring does show some
bacterial pollution problems.
All of America needs control over corporate and untoward public interests to
prevent ruination as of the East Swan in the 1900s. No river, no community,
should suffer polluted waters due to lack of controls. Since some states
have little funding for what they might perceive as "non-urgent' issues, Federal control seems to be the only
good answer to aim for pure waters in all communities.
The lovely East Swan River today:
-- 2017 --
Back to top
Undated: The Repeal
of the Stream Protection Rule ... was a House Joint Resolution
introduced in the
United States House of Representatives by
Bill Johnson of
Ohio on January 30, 2017. The resolution nullifies the
Department of the Interior regulation known as the "Stream Protection Rule",
which was established in the
Obama Administration. The regulation was scheduled to go into effect on
January 19, 2017.[1]
The resolution to repeal was signed into law by President
Donald
Trump on February 16, 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeal_of_Stream_Protection_Rule
February 1: Goodbye, Stream Protection Rule
... Not only is the GOP Congress going to kill it—they’re going to try to make
sure that it never comes back
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/green-life/goodbye-stream-protection-rule
February 3: Will Undoing The Stream
Protection Rule Really Help Coal?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2017/02/03/will-undoing-the-stream-protection-rule-really-help-coal/#6abad12a40bb
February 16: President Trump: Putting Coal
Country Back to Work
Today, President Donald J. Trump
signed legislation (House Joint Resolution 38) to stop the costly “Stream
Protection Rule” from further harming coal workers and the communities that
depend on them.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-trump-putting-coal-country-back-work/
Back to top
February 16: Why Trump just killed a rule
restricting coal companies from dumping waste in streams ...
With everything that Republicans want to do — repeal Obamacare, overhaul the tax
code — it might seem odd that one of Congress’ very first acts
would be to kill an obscure Obama-era regulation that restricts coal
companies from dumping mining waste into streams and waterways.
But that is indeed what’s going on. In early February, the House and Senate
voted to repeal the so-called
“stream
protection rule” — using a regulation-killing tool known as the
Congressional Review Act. On Thursday, President Trump
signed the
bill, which means the stream protection rule is now dead. Coal companies
will have a freer hand in dumping mining debris in streams.
https://www.vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rule
February 16: Coal pollution rule killed by
the GOP would have created as many jobs as it cost
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/coal-rule-gop-struck-down-would-have-created-as-many-jobs-as-it-cost.html
March 28: Trump wants to end the Clean Power
Plan
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/03/28/trump-wants-end-clean-power-plan-we-can-push-back?utm_source=google&utm_campaign=ggad_cleanenergy_upd_dmt&utm_medium=cpc&utm_id=1513935355&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvO2JhuL72AIVSJ7ACh0qmQugEAAYBCAAEgJtAfD_BwE
Back to top
March 28:
On February 2, in one of his first acts as Senate
majority leader of the 115th Congress, Mitch McConnell ushered through the
repeal of the Stream Protection Rule ...
President Donald Trump ordered his
administration to begin dismantling his predecessor’s climate change policies on
Tuesday with a sweeping directive to end what he called a "crushing attack" on
the U.S. economy — by halting efforts to reduce the carbon pollution of electric
utilities, oil and gas drillers and coal miners.
... since that much-ballyhooed vote in early
February, this is how many new coal jobs have been created in Appalachia: Zero.
And there are no signs there are any coming anytime soon: Tyler White,
president of the Kentucky Coal Association, couldn’t say how many jobs he
thought the repeal of the rule would create, “but I can tell you that it
definitely will help stop the bleeding.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donald-trump-obama-climate-change-policies-236570
November 17: By operation of the
Congressional Review Act, the Stream Protection Rule shall be treated as if it
had never taken effect. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
issues this document to effect the removal of any amendments, deletions or other
modifications made by the nullified rule, and the reversion to the text of the
regulations in effect immediately prior to the effective date of the Stream
Protection Rule.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/11/17/2017-24307/congressional-nullification-of-the-stream-protection-rule-under-the-congressional-review-act
-- 2018 --
Back to top
November 26:
The Stream Protection Rule modified
several existing regulations pertaining to surface coal mining. Modifications
were intended to change how mining permits defined damage to streams and other
water resources, require additional study before issuance of a permit, increase
monitoring requirements and ensure restoration or reclamation activities
returned land to a state capable of supporting its prior uses.
This nullification by the 115th Congress was introduced in response to concerns
from the mining industry that the new requirements would negatively affect
revenues.
A
2011 study by the EPA found that mountaintop removal (MTR) mining
"[led] directly to five principal alterations of stream ecosystems":
1. Springs, and...small perennial streams are permanently lost
2. Concentrations of major chemical ions (sulfate, bicarbonate, calcium, and
magnesium) are persistently elevated downstream
3. Degraded water quality reaches levels that are acutely lethal to standard
laboratory test organisms
4. Selenium concentrations are elevated, reaching concentrations that have
caused toxic effects in fish and birds and
5. Macroinvertebrate and fish communities are consistently degraded
Back to top
Research published in the Journal of Environmental Science & Technology
(2014) found that standard
practices to restore impacted streams had little or no affect, and did not
meet the required quality improvements under the Clean Water Act.
Streams are crucial to local and regional ecology because they filter pollutants
and carry sediment and nutrients into larger bodies of water.
Streams also provide an important habitat for insects, amphibians, and fish that
have important roles in ecology and the food web. Some streams are permanent and
flow year-round, while many others (classified as intermittent or
ephemeral) flow only during certain seasons or after rainfall.
Proponents of PL115-5 believe that the Stream Protection Rule is a
confusing and over-reaching regulation that would hurt the coal economy. It
would be a burden on mining companies by costing them money to comply with
regulations and preventing companies from accessing coal. The rule would
negatively impact mining communities through
loss of jobs and tax revenue. They also maintain that existing rules
regarding post-mining reclamation efforts are adequate.
Opponents of PL115-5 suggest that the mining industry needs updated
regulations, such as those contained in the now-repealed Stream Protection Rule,
to ensure that surface and MTR mining do not do irreparable harm to the
environment and local communities in the mined area. Economically, opponents say
that loss of mining jobs has more to do with lower prices of competing energy
sources like natural gas and that any loss in mining jobs from the Stream
Protection Rule would be offset by jobs created in mining regulation
https://scipol.duke.edu/track/public-law-115-5-joint-resolution-disapproving-rule-submitted-department-interior-kno/repeal
-- 2019 --
Back to top
-- 2020 --
Back to top
Webpage visitor counts provided
by
copyr 2018 trump-news-history.com, Minneapolis, MN