Stream Protection Rule 
FREE NEWS LINKS

photo of U.S. Capitol Building  
      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]

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".

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 non-urgent issues, Federal control seems to be the only good answer to aim for pure waters in all communities.

Back to top



The lovely East Swan River today:
photo of East Swan 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/

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

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

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