West Virginians have good reason to regulate how companies mine coal. They have had to live with the consequences of reckless production practices.
They also have reason to object to reckless judicial rule-making.
The public has, through its representatives in legislative bodies, established rules for mountaintop removal mining. Environmental groups, disapproving of those rules, seek to re-shape the regulations using the courts.
Charleston Daily Mail
Courts are not the proper forum for making rules in such situations
West Virginians have good reason to regulate how companies mine coal. They have had to live with the consequences of reckless production practices.
They also have reason to object to reckless judicial rule-making.
The public has, through its representatives in legislative bodies, established rules for mountaintop removal mining. Environmental groups, disapproving of those rules, seek to re-shape the regulations using the courts.
It's easier. A few judges here and there, and you can make law the people did not choose to put into place.
The late U.S. District Judge Charles Haden, and U.S. District Judge Robert C. Chambers, have made rulings that endanger surface mining in this state.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Haden's ruling, and Gov. Joe Manchin and Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship - at odds in other cases - seek to establish that Chambers also overreached.
The state has filed briefs with the 4th Circuit contending that Chambers' rulings, which would redefine practices in use since passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, would harm West Virginians.
More than 600 jobs are at risk at the five mines affected by the rulings. In 2006, more than 7,000 West Virginians were involved in mining almost 67 million tons of coal by surface methods.
Essential family, state and local functions depend on the income from surface mining
Which is why regulatory policy should be defined through legislative channels, which must consider all interests, rather than by the courts.