For Additional Information:
John Grasser (202) 463-2651
Karen Batra (202) 463-2651

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 26, 2000

NMA FILES BRIEF URGING REVERSAL OF FEDERAL COURT DECISION BANNING VALLEY FILLS BRAGG V. ROBERTSON, NO. 99-2443(L) (4TH CIR.)


The National Mining Association filed a friend of the court brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit explaining why the West Virginia federal district court's decision banning valley fills should be reversed.

In an October 1999 decision, the court held that the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and the Clean Water Act did not authorize the placing of valley and hollow fills constructed of excess spoil from coal mines in intermittent and perennial streams. NMA told the appeals court that, as it stands, the decision jeopardizes the continued viability of the coal industry in Appalachia and elsewhere.

Reporters requesting a copy of the brief can contact NMA's media relations department at (202) 463-2651.

A summary of the key points follows.

NMA Friend of the Court Brief

Urging Reversal of Federal Court Decision Banning Valley Fills
Bragg v. Robertson, No. 99-2443(L) (4th Cir.)

Summary of the key points

  • The district court misconstrued SMCRA and the Clean Water Act and ignored longstanding interpretations of those laws when it held that SMCRA does not authorize spoil fills in areas with streams.
  • The excess spoil disposal provisions of SMCRA explicitly recognize that valley fills will be placed in "natural water courses," a term whose plain meaning includes intermittent and perennial streams.
  • SMCRA’s implementing regulations explicitly provide special drainage requirements which only apply when fills are located in areas with streams.
  • The court misapplied and ignored the purpose of the Clean Water Act § 404 fill disposal provisions, as well as the longstanding regulatory policy whereby § 404 permits were the vehicle for authorization under the Clean Water Act to construct these fills.
  • The court erred when it concluded that the SMCRA stream buffer zone rule independently barred fills in streams.
  • A SMCRA regulation cannot be construed to prohibit what the statute explicitly authorizes. The result creates an impermissible conflict with the Clean Water Act which authorizes spoil fills under § 404. SMCRA expressly prohibits any interpretation that would alter the Clean Water Act.