The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Wrap-Up of Legislative Efforts to Achieve Sludge Safety

by Ted Boettner, WV Environmental Council

The Good

During the 60-day session we did meet some of our goals. First, we drafted and got introduced for the first time a sludge safety bill (H.B. 4583) that, if passed, would have stopped the DEP from issuing permits to construct sludge ponds, banned coal slurry injection, and called for a study of existing sludge ponds.

Also, we assisted in getting a study resolution introduced in the House of Delegates (H.C.R. 89) that would have explored alternatives to coal impoundments.

Moreover, we also assisted in getting a similar resolution introduced in the Senate (S.C.R. 49) to study the coal impoundments. The introduction of the legislation and the resolutions, along with the repeated and poignant testimony of those directly affected by sludge, did help bring awareness to the issue of sludge safety.

One of the great highlights of this past session was the intrepid and moral leadership of Del. Larry Barker (D-Boone). Barker was not only the lead sponsor on both the legislation and the House resolution, but spent a tremendous amount of his time trying to convince other delegates of the importance of sludge safety legislation.

Those concerned about sludge safety owe a great debt of gratitude to Del. Barker, who carried the torch amid strong odds and powerful interests.

The Bad

This is the easy part. While many coal field residents were living in daily fear of looming sludge impoundments and drinking water containing sludge, the legislature decided it wasn’t a big enough problem to move sludge safety to the agenda. Despite the sludge bill being introduced in the middle of the session, there was still time for the House Judiciary Chairman to place it on the agenda.

It was decided that there were “too many powerful interests” to let this happen and that we’d be better off with a study resolution. Although legislators introduced the two study resolutions, nither moved out of the rules committees. This is where the ugly comes in.

The Ugly

During the end of the session, when the sludge bill had already died, coalfield residents were promised by a powerful member of the rules committee that our study resolution (HCR 89) would move to the special calendar where it would be voted upon. However, this promise fell apart when our resolution was sacrificed in an agreement to allow an amendment regarding overweight coal trucks to reach the floor.

Despite these setbacks, we will be back in the Interims and next year pushing sludge safety. Until then, let’s keep the pressure coming. After all, mine safety should extend far beyond the mine gate.