[Coach_Owens87]

Nor you will never see one being built in a river it's impossible.

In 1998 West Virginia Highland Conservancy challenged the regulation of Surface Mining and MTR, because the word "waste" was used with the term "fill material".
In the final clarification rule the term "fill material" was redefined to include overburden, slurry, tailing or similar mining related materials, which is where were at today.

How you can say that your not against all mining just MTR, when your against valley fills? Valley fills are used in every type of coal mining, without valley fills coal mining can't exist, and if you and the other anti-mining groups were just against MTR, looks like you would support laws that would ban MTR.

Again you keep spitting out the same BS, I dont like MTR, I am totally against ILLEGAL valley fills, I am not against all mining.

a lot of people from the pro-mtr side, and the "Friends of coal" nutcases, keep trying to persuade people the anyone against MTR is against coal and wants to take coal miners jobs. Which isnt true, machines and the practice of MTR has taken away more jobs from miners than any environmentalist will do.

And I wasn't talking about the 1998 West Virginia ruling, which under the proposal of the Clinton administration and the EPA, was used throughout Appalachia beginning in 2000. The ruling I was talking about was completed in may 2002, The bush administration changed the definition of fill material, and they changed the ruling on how and where this material could be placed. They changed many other things also like downgrading the label of "Hazardous" on mercury pollution from power plants, which gave power plants 15 more years to implement better controls, they also changed a ruling that made high level radioactive waste "incidental", which saved the government the time and money it takes to clean it up.

The ruling on the "fill material" consisted of the same type of tricks, one which is still ongoing, the "clarification" of the stream buffer rule. They also changed many of the rulings under the CWA from "discretionary" to "non discretionary", minor word changes that have major effects. They also changed the limits on the size of new MTR sites. I have mentioned this rule change at least a dozen times, and then you bring up a ruling from 1998, that was only in WV, and has nothing to do with Kentucky, or this topic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn...ge=printer