"When valley fills are permitted in...streams, they destroy those stream segments... If there is any form of life that cannot acclimate to life deep in a rubble pile, it is eliminated. No effect on related environmental values is more adverse than obliteration." - District Judge Charles H. Haden II, Bragg v. Robertson (S.D.W.V. 1999) The Bush administration's proposed Clean Water Act rule change is an attempt to legalize the destructive practice of mountaintop removal coal mining, where the tops of mountains are literally blown apart and the millions of tons of waste generated are dumped into nearby valleys, permanently burying the streams that once flowed there. The rule change centers on the definition of "fill." The Clean Water Act currently authorizes the Corps to issue permits to dredge and fill waterways. Because the Corps' regulatory definition of "fill" expressly prohibits the use of waste as "fill" material in waters, the Corps is legally barred from issuing permits to industries wishing to discharge pollutants composed of waste as "fill." This waste exclusion has been a part of Clean Water Act regulations since 1977. The Bush administration plans to delete this important waste exclusion from the Corps' definition. The environmental impacts of this rule change would not end with mountaintop mining. Removing the waste exclusion would also allow polluters to dump hardrock mineral mining waste, construction and demolition debris and other forms of industrial waste in streams, rivers, wetlands and other waters across the nation. In 2000, the Clinton administration proposed a similar rule change and met with intense opposition from the public, with nearly 17,000 public comments opposing the proposal to allow the dumping of waste in waters. As a result, the rule change was never finalized. In an attempt to avoid another public outcry, the Bush administration intends to finalize a version of this unpopular proposal to weaken clean water protections without further input from the public - despite the public's overwhelming opposition to this rule change in the past. Read a recent Washington Post article about this issue at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4389-2002Apr5.html |