When mountaintop mining occurs the waste rock, rubble, dirt and other debris that results from blasting gets push off the cleared ridge-top and unceremoniously dumped down the mountainside. Not only does the hyrdology change due to the drastic topographic and vegetative alterations of the landscape, but the streams flowing down the mountainsides and through the valleys below disappear.  Burying waterways under tons of mining waste -- otherwise known as a 'valley fill' -- simply obliterates them. 

The question then is whether it is possible for the mining companies to mitigate the damage by restoring or re-engineering the destroyed waterways.  The common-sense response is absolutely not.  In both appearance in function, these former streams no longer exist after mining.  But in Appalachia, the mining companies routinely get the benefit of doubt from federal regulators, resulting time and time again in permits issued by the U.S. Corps of Engineers that allow rivers, creeks and streams to be filled with waste from mountaintop removal mining.

In a case playing out right now in federal court in West Virginia, environmental lawyers are taking on the coal industry over this very topic.  Scientists testified yesterday that there is little evidence to support the claim that streams buried by mountaintop mining can be rebuilt.  However, they say regulators routinely approve such projects anyway, through a fatally flawed formula and a review process that stifles public input.

Mark Brinson, an East Carolina University biologist, told the judge the Army Corps of Engineers' formula would not score well if a student submitted it in one of his classes. "I wouldn't even grade it," he said.

Emily Bernhardt, a Duke University stream ecologist, said the corps' formula does not even spell out how it accounts for the core role of streams in the movement of water, energy and nutrients.  "I don't see how you can assess something as basic as hydrology without knowing anything about water flow," she said.

Brinson agreed.  "You need to be able to measure some of these functions, otherwise, you're just whistling in the dark," Brinson said.

Brinson and Bernhardt both testified that the corps' new formula is not nearly detailed enough to truly measure what is lost when headwater streams are buried, let alone decide if mine operator proposals to replace lost ecological functions will work.

Bernhardt said, "There isn't a great deal of evidence -- some would argue no evidence at all -- that recreating streams" will work on mountaintop removal sites. "The likelihood of achieving true biological re-creation is very limited."

Lawyers for the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy filed the lawsuit to block a permit for two adjacent strip mines that would mountaintop-remove nearly 10 million tons of coal from a 900-acre area in Lilly Fork of Buffalo Creek near the town of Gilboa.  In the process, more than five miles of streams would be buried beneath 10 valley fills, according to permit documents. 

Company officials propose to offset this loss by restoring or creating nearly five miles of streams on a separate reclaimed mine site.  (The company already buried more than 500 feet of streams without the proper permit but Corps officials took no enforcement action, concluding that the violation did "not present an immediate threat to life or property.")

Let's hope the judge in this case listens to the scientists, not the mining engineers and agency 'experts', when deciding when a stream is no longer a stream thanks to mountaintop mining.

This important coastal protection had withstood every effort to repeal it over the years but withered for lack of political will in the face of high gas prices.  The oil companies finally achieved success by pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into a PR-fueled lobby blitz that saw members of both parties in Congress exploiting the "drill, baby, drill" mantra.  People fed up with $4/gallon gas wanted action - any action! - and so they were hoodwinked by snake-oil peddling and political pandering. 

Sadly, many elected officials who get that drilling won't lower prices at the pump or put a dent in our country's oil dependence nevertheless were unable to stop Big Oil and its friends in Congress.  And in this election year, President Bush's threatened veto of a federal spending bill authorizing renewal of the drilling ban made the risk of a government shutdown too great for the Democrats to ignore.

So what happens now?  With the expiration of the OCS moratorium, new drill rigs could be placed only three miles from the shoreline anywhere on the entire Atlantic and Pacific coast, as well as a part of the eastern Gulf of Mexico.  (However, leasing will remain banned within 125 miles or more of Florida's gulf shores until 2022, per a compromise law passed in 2006 that opened more than 8 million acres of the gulf acreage to new leasing in exchange for bigger shore buffer protection.) 

The first question is whether any coastal states will let that happen.  No doubt some, like Louisiana and Texas, would welcome more rigs but others, like Florida and New Jersey, would surely use any legal means at their disposal to protect their beaches and coastal economies.

Then there's the typical bureaucratic process for leasing federal areas for drilling, which realistically means that the first exploratory drilling rigs wouldn't be up until five years from now at the earliest.  That is, unless the new president or a new Congress decided to reinstate either the executive or congressional OCS moratoriums - or both.

So the oil industry may have won the fight, but the war over offshore drilling is far from over. Stay tuned.

I seriously doubt that could happen in any town anywhere across America without sparking the neighborhood association’s ire, unwanted attention from the local permit police, criminal fines and a big fat lawsuit.

Now imagine that the barrier in question is a 700-mile, two-layer fence along the U.S.-Mexico border ostensibly intended to keep illegal immigrants out, but guaranteed to wreak havoc on the environment.

Today the Department of Homeland Security waived 19 environmental, cultural and other federal laws in order to proceed with construction of that border wall (and a road) in southeastern Arizona.

DHS Secretary Michael Cherthoff invoked this broad waiver for the first time – under authority granted by Congress in 2005 in the passage of the REAL ID Act – after a federal judge halted construction earlier this month to protect the ecologically fragile San Pedro National Riparian Conservation Area.

You betcha, Sec. Cherthoff has the “right” to ignore any and all laws of the United States when it comes to constructing barriers along the border. 

Certainly we can secure our borders without bulldozing America’s public lands.

In this case, the border wall threatens one of the last free-flowing rivers in the southwestern United States. This unique and biologically diverse watershed, internationally-renowned for its natural beauty, attracts visitors from around the world. Home to some 250 species of migratory birds, the San Pedro River region has been designated a Globally Important Bird Area by the National Audubon Society, and a World Heritage Natural Area by the United Nations.

Aside from the habitat damage resulting from the controversial border fence, local residents should be concerned about their own quality of life. Aside from the fact that the river also supplies clean drinking water to thousands of residents (on both sides of the border), this action demonstrates that the director of Homeland Security has is a license to waive any law, for any reason – or for no reason at all.

Just consider this sample of the fundamental laws now rendered moot by the Bush administration:

• Clean Water Act
• Clean Air Act
• Safe Drinking Water Act
• Solid Waste Disposal Act
• Superfund
• National Environmental Protection Act
• National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act
• National Historic Preservation Act
• Archeological Resources Protection Act
• Historic Preservation Act
• Antiquities Act
• Noise Control Act
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
• Federal Land Policy and Management Act
• Farmland Protection Act

Message from the Bush administration:  America is a nation founded on the rule of law – but apparently not when the Homeland Security agency is involved.

Think about that for a moment. Laws that protect the environment, safeguard public health, ensure consumer and workplace safety, prevent unfair business practices, and ban discrimination – none of these laws (or any others for that matter) apply to the agency entrusted with protecting the American people.

Ironically, the one thing that pesky wall is keeping out of America is democracy itself.

There is a tiny sliver of hope, which is that Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) has introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would secure America’s border with Mexico while reducing the negative impact on local communities and natural resources, including national parks, wildlife refuges and monuments that are home to endangered species. The “Borderlands Security and Conservation Act of 2007” (H.R. 2593) would amend existing immigration and border security laws, including REAL ID and the “Secure Fence Act”, to help alleviate the impacts of border enforcement on public lands, wildlife and borderland communities.