At a minimum, if the Committee believes we cannot phase out strip mining immediately, we must develop Federal controls to protect the environment. Such protection could be provided by Federal legislation which would: 1. Shorten the period between the time mining ends and reclamation begins; 2. Restore the land to its original contour; 3. Increase the amounts of reclamation performance bonds strip miners must post to obtain licenses from $300 to at least $500 or more per acre; 4. Return the topsoil to the top, unless the subsoil is better quality, thus preserving the land's tax value. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize my support for immediate and vigorous action. I hope your Committee can give immediate and favorable consideration to H.R. 4556. As concerned American citizens the responsibility fo protecting our environment lies collectively on all our shoulders. Strip mining must be Federally controlled. It appears quite possible to abolish strip mining without producing other problems which are of a magnitude unreasonable by comparison to the benefits derived from arresting the massive degradation of our land by strip mining. Mr. ASPINALL. The next witness this morning will be Joseph S. Abdnor, vice president, Pickands Mather & Co., on behalf of the American Mining Congress. We are glad to have you with us this morning, Mr. Vice President, and shall listen with pleasure to your statement. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH S. ABDNOR, VICE PRESIDENT, PICKANDS MATHER & CO., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN MINING CONGRESS Mr. ABDNOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I am Joseph S. Abdnor, vice president of Pickands Mather & Co. of Cleveland, Ohio, and cochairman of the American Mining Congress Select Committee on Surface Mining Legislation. I appear before you today on behalf of the American Mining Congress. Let me say at the outset that the American Mining Congress endorses the concept embodied in a number of the legislative proposals pending before this committee-namely, that it is appropriate for the Federal Government to have and exercise the authority to establish guidelines for the regulation of surface mining. While urging that the States have a responsible role, we recognize that when Federal guidelines are thus set, it is incumbent on a State to satisfy those Federal guidelines; and if it does not, then the Federal Government will come into a State and do the job itself. I shall have more to say momentarily about the manner in which such authority might best be exercised in the national interest. But I wanted first to make clear the basic position of the American Mining Congress, so that the following comments on the matter will reach you in the context of our basic position. In that connection, I should like to quote for the record the current statement of policy on surface mining adopted in July 1971 by the board of directors of the American Mining Congress: Attainment of the goals of the National Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 requires fostering by all levels of government of the economic development of domestic minerals by both underground and surface mining methods. The American Mining Congress, working with and through its members, will urge the adoption of realistic surface mining regulation at the state level and will support federal surface mining legislation which is realistically designed to assist the states and the surface mining industry in conducting surface mining operations so as to have the least practicable adverse effect on other resource values and in reclaiming mined land to the degree reasonably attainable, provided: (a) such legislation recognizes that, because of the diversity of terrain, climate, biologic, chemical and other physical conditions in mining areas and because of the many variations in mining methods required to produce widely differing ores and minerals, the establishment on a nationwide basis of uniform standards for surface mining operations and for the reclamation of surface mined areas is not feasible, and (b) such legislation is compatible with the National Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970. This statement speaks for itself. It needs no explanatory comment. Yet, I do want to make this one observation. It is not by accident that this statement begins and ends with specific references to the National Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970. That act, which became law with the great help of this committee's initiative, is landmark legislation. It proclaims that the national interest is served by fostering and encouraging the private development of an economically sound and stable domestic mining industry. As we view it, the policy enunciated in the act encourages the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources. It encourages mining, mineral, and metallurgical research. It encourages the study and development of methods for the disposal, control, and reclamation of mineral waste productsand it encourages the reclamation of mined land. We hold strongly to the view that any Federal legislation on surface mining should comport with the directives of this recently enacted statement of national policy. Such legislation should be consistent with operating realities and the almost endless diversity of the American mining industry. It should take cognizance of the extent to which the many segments of our industry now operate under State and local laws and regulations. Obviously, it should neither go so far as to prohibit mining nor to place such an economic burden on the winning of ore reserves that they become unminable. Such extremes of regulation would do violence to the National Mining and Minerals Policy Act and would be inimical to the national interest. The kind of legislation that would be appropriate here, Mr. Chairman, is legislation that authorizes the Federal Government to establish broad, reasonable guidelines for mined-land reclamation. By saying that such federal guidelines should be broad and reasonable, I mean that they should be so written that they will not impinge on the powers of the States also to regulate. So many States are doing constructive work in mined-land reclamation that they should be encouraged, not impeded, in these efforts. Twenty-six States have enacted laws regulating surface mining. Other States will consider legislation in forthcoming sessions of their legislatures. To establish such guidelines will require a large measure of wisdom and restraint at the Federal level, in the presence of a law that authorizes even the kind of general Federal guidelines we speak about here. Experience also tells us that it may require as well a continuing oversight function by the Congress. We all know that the regulator's urge to regulate is strong. From State to State, from place to place, it can well be said of mining that its only constant is its diversity. Strip mining of coal in Appalachia differs markedly from strip mining of coal in the Midwest, and in some other areas in the East. All of these in turn differ materially from operations on 100-foot lignite seams in the MontanaDakotas region. Vastly different still are conditions in the immense iron ore open-pit operations in northern Minnesota. Likewise different is open-pit mining in the West and Southwest. Florida phosphate mining bears no resemblance to the hardrock mining of the Western States. Phosphate is a good illustration of the variations that occur within one segment of the industry. Both the mining and reclamation requirements of phosphate producers in Florida are entirely different than those in Idaho, although both are 100 percent surface mining operations. The highly urbanized activities of many sand and gravel operations are also individually unique. The distinctions of the mining industry are virtually endless. Mr. ASPINALL. Will you stop for just a minute. Mr. ABDNOR. Yes, sir. Mr. ASPINALL. You are not reading directly from the text. You are giving us parcels of it and I would ask unanimous consent that the whole statement be placed in the record as if read so that the reporter will know what we are doing. Is there any objection? If not, then continue like you are. Mr. ABDNOR. Thank you, sir. This is extracted from the total state ment. Mr. ASPINALL. That is all right. You are doing all right but I hadn't advised the reporter at the beginning of your testimony. She didn't know whether we were leaving out some on purpose or what we were doing. Go ahead. Mr. ABDNOR. Thank you sir. All such diverse realities of mining argue eloquently against any effort to devise other than broad, reasonable Federal guidelines-guidelines that will not impinge on the States' capabilities to treat with these widely varying local conditions. Mr. Chairman, this statement on behalf of the American Mining Congress is couched in general terms. Separate industry segments are scheduled to testify-coal, sand and gravel, crushed stone. Several State mining associations, we understand, will also appear. Their presentations will undoubtedly address themselves more directly than we did to their specialized concerns and conditions. In so doing, we believe they will reinforce the points made in this testimony of the American Mining Congress. And while the spokesmen for these specialized mining industry segments may concern themselves with particular bills and amendments, we believe it will be more helpful to the committee if we limit ourselves at this time to general comments and a statement of basic American Mining Congress position. You are considering a wide variety of proposals, and undoubtedly you will narrow those down as your deliberation progresses. With your permission, we may wish to make a further submission-particularly in the area of technical suggestions-as you sort out from the array before you those provisions chosen for probable inclusion in a bill the committee might approve. In this context and these are general recommendations rather than precise language amendments-I must first emphasize our concern that any bill the committee approves should include an appeals procedure, including the right to judicial review by the courts. It would be our hope that such procedure would apply to rulemaking and administrative decisions at all levels. Mining operations should be per mitted to continue under proper assurances that the rights of those concerned are protected during the appeal procedure. Second, we believe most emphatically that criminal sanctions in a Federal surface mining statute would be most inappropriate. It will not be possible to meet the due process requirement of the law. Moreover, in matters affecting mined land where every operation is necessarily unique, it is most unfair to suggest that operators should be subject to criminal sanctions when the regulations issued pursuant to the act will be couched in generalized language. The proper enforcement mechanism in such situations is by way of injunction, the terms of which will explicitly define the impact of the regulation in a specific mining operation. Also, we deem it imperative that all advisory committees be required to have industry representation. We contend, and we think we are correct, that our members know more about mining than anybody else. We stand ready to share that competence, and we want to participate fully in any advisory functions that may be established. In summary then, Mr. Chairman, let me repeat: The American Mining Congress supports legislation establishing Federal guidelines for the regulation of surface mining. These guidelines must be sufficiently broad that they do not impinge on the power of the various States also to regulate-for only in this way can our laws respond rationally to the almost endless diversity of mining methods and conditions. And any Federal surface mining law should be consistent with the National Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970. Thank you, sir. Mr. ASPINALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Abdnor. I see no need of placing the release of your position in the record but will place it in the file. (The document referred to will be found in the files of the subcommittee.) Mr. ASPINALL. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Steiger. Mr. Abdnor, just offhand and without meaning to in any way question the validity of your comments, which I don't question, but in seeking information, can you think of any Federal entity operating in any technical arena that has done-in a regulatory capacity that has done a better job or superior job-I will make my question even less objective-that has not succeeded in compounding whatever problem it was attempting to regulate as compared to a local entity that at least in theory would be knowledgable about local conditions? Mr. ABDNOR. First, of course, the answers I give will be personal and not those of the entire association. Mr. STEIGER. I understand that. Mr. ABDNOR. In my own judgment, it is a pretty broad question and I cannot answer it affirmatively. I can't at this time say I know of any situation in which the Federal regulatory agency has been superior to the State regulation of the same type of function. I think, sir, this is why the sharing of that opinion by others in the mining industry might well have led to the position we have taken and that is the primary responsibility must and should be with the State, where there is a knowledge of local conditions, local needs, local requirements, and, of course, the particular type of mining that is involved there, and we encourage State controls insofar as absolutely possible, sir. Mr. STEIGER. Your reference on several occasions to the establishment of guidelines and I thought your very excellent comment that regulators inevitably tend to regulate, the implication was, excessively, very valid. You make reference in the body of this to some changes which you anticipate you might like to suggest. I wonder if you would mind suggesting some specific changes at this time so we may get a further idea of your thinking. Mr. ABDNOR. Yes, sir; I will be glad to tell you more precisely. Let's take one piece of legislature, definition of reclamation, which is pretty general in a lot of these bills. It says reclamation means activity which is taken during and following a mining operation to avoid or correct adverse environmental effects of mining operations. Correct adverse effects of mining operations. Now, gentlemen, certainly it could be said that digging a hole in the ground is an adverse environmental effect, so to correct that presumably on the basis of a definition like that, you would have to fill that hole in the ground, at least that claim would be made. Now, Minnesota has a hole in the ground that is about 10 miles long, 3 miles wide, and a tenth of a mile deep and that hole in the ground it is said has fought two world wars by providing the iron ore for the steel for this Nation for those two wars. Now, the only way you can correct that adverse condition is dig another hole in the ground and you get into absurdity. You have got to stop mining. Now, this type of definition I fear is in this legislation because inevitably we think in terms of one type of mining. We are confused about the term "strip mining," to be perfectly frank with you, as distinguished from surface mining. In mining, strip mining is one type of surface mining, predominantly used for the mining of coal or mining of phosphate but it is the strip type. Open pit mining is another kind of surface mining, and yet these terms, "strip mining" and "surface mining," are used interchangeably, I am afraid, in a good deal of this legislation. Too much of this reflects the attention given to one type of mining and that is strip coal mining. Another instance, to respond more fully, would be the bonding requirement. We don't object to providing the financial security for doing a job that is imposed upon us, but again my company has a mine that has been operated for over 70 years. As we go into low-grade ores we are going to operate that mine another 30 to 50 years. To start a new mine today and be required by statute specifically to provide a bond for the performance of certain functions 130 to 140 years from now is obviously an encumbrance that simply is insurmountable. We believe things like this should be guidelines for the administrators so that as he looks at a mining operation that is going to have $50 million worth of mineral reserves 75 years from now which will well secure the performance of the work that it is called upon to do, there is no need for trying to find a bonder, whether it is Lloyds of London or somebody else, that will provide you with a bond effective over a hundred years hence. This is the type of thing that we, I think, will be asking the Congress to adjust in the legislation before it. Mr. STEIGER. Mr. Abdnor, I am sure you are aware of the pressures of the so-called ecologic activists, or whatever you want to call them, |