Lawmakers float legislation to undo transportation offset on reclamation funding

Reprinted with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. Not for republication by Wyoming media.

Reps. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) and Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) introduced legislation yesterday to repeal an offset to the transportation bill that President Obama recently signed into law. The conference committee that hammered out the transportation legislation included a measure to cap at $15 million abandoned coal mine reclamation program payments to states and tribes that are certified as having finished cleaning up their priority sites.On its face, the measure means Wyoming will lose more than $700 million over the next 10 years while sparing other certified jurisdictions like Montana, which receives less in annual payments.But adding fuel to the anger, it turns out that the offset will also cost uncertified states close to $600 million, according to a new analysis by lawmakers and the Interstate Mining Compact Commission. IMCC said that, for example, Pennsylvania stands to lose $17.8 million a year and West Virginia $10.2 million a year.”Whether this amount of money will be restored in later years remains to be seen, but we are concerned that this will not be the case,” IMCC Executive Director Greg Conrad wrote this week in a letterto the Wyoming congressional delegation.The offset effectively amended 2006 changes to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, a carefully crafted formula for distributing the dollars collected from coal industry taxes.

Uncertified states like Pennsylvania are in dire need of funding to clean up pollution from abandoned coal mine sites that predate key laws like the Clean Water Act. Lawmakers from certified tribes and states like Wyoming shudder at the thought of money collected from coal companies in their jurisdictions going elsewhere.

“Given the complexity of this seemingly ‘simple’ amendment to SMCRA, our analysis of the impact continues,” Conrad wrote. “There are a host of procedural and logistical questions concerning its interconnectedness with other provisions of the Act which will likely require rule-making by the Office of Surface Mining to fully sort out.”

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the powerful Finance Committee, who represents a state that benefits from the current system, defended not blocking the offset.

“While Senator Baucus did not raise this provision in the [transportation] conference,” the senator’s office said in a statement, “he did not oppose it, because it cracks down on wasteful spending while protecting states like Montana who are using their [abandoned mine lands] money for [non-coal] mine cleanup.”

However, it appears that many lawmakers and staff did not fully understand the arcane details of the funding distribution formula.

“This is what happens when the legislation is done by a few in the middle of the night,” members of the Wyoming delegation said in a joint statement yesterday. “We hope this information will help us convince our colleagues in both the Senate and House to fix this.”

Lawmakers were tight-lipped when asked about plans to force Congress to undo the offset. “We’re working on it,” said Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), a Finance Committee member. Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the fourth-ranking Senate Republican, said, “Yes, there’s a plan.”

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for:

Your real name — first and last.
Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
No more than three comments per story, including replies.

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
Comments that are not directly relevant to the article.
Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know:

Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement.
We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance.
Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you.