Protect out Water!

Oct 25, 2008 01:45

In Docket OSM-2007-0008, The Department of the Interior, in alliance with coal companies who practice environmentally detrimental strip mining has proposed the removal of clauses in the Excess Spoil Minimization legislation that governs this type of activity that would allow coal companies to dump their debris and rubble anywhere, including right ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

corelog October 25 2008, 17:04:04 UTC
So which of the five alternatives listed there would you most like to see enacted?

I'll be honest with you--reading the list myself, I like Alternatives 1 and 2. There are significant good points to both, though I favor Alternative 2 most of all.

I particularly note that even Alternative 1 (the preferred alternative) says quite plainly that the stream buffer zones will continue to be enforced, though companies may apply for an exception IF they can prove there are no other reasonable alternatives available at all. Therefore, it doesn't look to me as though they're blanket allowing coal companies to dump into waterways. In fact, it looks much more like their stated intention--to clarify existing legislation.

Alternative 2 doesn't allow for exceptions (as I read it), and that suits me better than Alternative 1. However, I also notice that there are a total of five alternatives being considered, one of which is to take no action at all (ie. keep current legislation as it is).

It's your country, but I'm not sure I see a reason for such alarm. Though people should definitely comment to identify the alternative of their preference.

Reply

marzolan October 25 2008, 18:20:11 UTC
It's the "alternatives not carried forward for detailed consideration" that are the dangerous ones. The problem is that they can still be considered as viable action alternatives when the final decision is being made. That's the troublesome part. Admittedly, it's good to know that those aren't being fully considered, but still troublesome that they were suggested by the public.

Now, as regards your question... Alternative 2 still allows for the company to apply for a variance, though it does not spell out any further exceptions. I believe Alternative 1 to be the best solution of what's stated, even though I still feel 100 feet is too lenient.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up