Discussion - Accommodating The Land Use Planning Provisions Of The Surface Mining Control And Reclamation Act Technical Papers, Mining Engineering, Vol. 35, No. 12 Dec. 1983, Pp. 1654-1656

P.J. Ehret By and large, I agree with many of the precepts discussed in the Saperstein paper. I believe there is much more that can be done on the local level to involve both government and planning in the mine permit review process. Admittedly, much can be done to improve discussion between the state regulatory authority, local authorities, and mine operators. However, I strongly disagree, as suggested in the paper's conclusion, that such a system, as outlined in Saperstein's paper, could result in a reduction of review time or a lowering in the cost of permitting. The implementation of such a system by its very nature would only add a new level of bureaucracy to an already cumbersome process. This system, in my opinion, would only add to the cost of permitting and the time necessary to obtain a permit. Admittedly, it would achieve the result of adding local influence into the permitting process, but at what off-setting cost? It has been my professional first-hand experience and observation in the permitting and lands unsuitable processes to note that under the present system, local governments that do feel they have a stake in local mines and actively ad¬vocate their position (not simply comment), have had significant input into the conduct of mining and reclamation plans in their areas. Mining companies that mine in these areas are aware of local interests and attitudes, and do consider them in their plans. Simply put, local governments that want to get involved and want to play significant roles can and do. Those that do not advocate a position or have no input to offer do not. Although the present system is not as direct in effect in regard to local control as Saperstein's, it does work. It does so without the red tape that would result from developing miniature regulatory authorities in every county in which mining occurs. Although local input is important, there are many more sections of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) than Sections 508(a)(8) and 522(a)(3)(A) that also are important. It appears Saperstein's paper may overindulge these sections. An additional specific comment is made in regard to the statement that while local areas benefit from mining (wages, salaries, and purchases), they also endure environmental deterioration caused by mining affects. It is believed that the whole purpose for which SMCRA and its resulting regulations were enacted and developed was so mining would not be permitted if significant environmental deterioration could occur. Therefore, it could be argued that this point under current law is moot. Reply by L.W. Saperstein P.J. Ehret writes in a reasoned and rational way and makes some good points. The arguments in favor of central control of the designation process reflect all of the benefits associated with central environmental control: consistency of enforcement, efficiency of operation, ease of communication among enforcing agency, etc. Nonetheless, the decision to mine or not to mine is a landuse decision which, in substance, is similar to the decision to build a shopping mall, a new highway, or a housing subdivision. Although, state and federal governments' interests in the protection of public welfare are real and are expressed properly in mining laws and mining enforcement agencies (OSM, Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals, etc). I continue to maintain that the permitting and designation processes should originate with local government, which is in keeping with the American tradition of delegation of the land-use decision to local or regional government.