Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H. Joint Res. 16

Disapproving a rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the "Stream Protection Rule".

Bill Details

Official information provided by the Congressional Research Service. Learn more or make a suggestion.
The Congressional Research Service writes summaries for most legislation. These summaries are listed here. Causes will update some legislation with a revised summary, title or other key elements.

Suggest an update to this bill using our form.

Official Title

Disapproving a rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the "Stream Protection Rule".

Summary

This joint resolution nullifies the Stream Protection Rule finalized by the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement on December 20, 2016. The rule addresses the impacts of surface coal mining operations on surface water, groundwater, and the productivity of mining operation sites.

joint resolution Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on Natural Resources
    IntroducedJanuary 4th, 2017
    Hey, if the courts shut down the EPA ruling on streams, pools, or lawn run off after a rain sounds very similar to Dept of Interior doesn't it? I can just visualize our exPOTUS holding a meeting crying about his EPA regulation being shelved just before a new POTUS. Then, with a stroke of community activist ingenuity, he sees an alternative way. Since the Dept of Interior has authority over "waters" of the US. …WE NEED TO GET THESE COMMIES out of our Government. Always scheming for control. So support H.J. 16. We citizens, the forgotten man, will again be the true captain of the ship.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Protect our environment for our health and for our children's.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    H.J.Res. 16: Disapproving a rule submitted by the Department ... ... of the Interior known as the “Stream Protection Rule”. Summary: The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress, and was published on Jan 4, 2017. Nullifies the Stream Protection Rule submitted by the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. The rule addresses the impacts of surface coal mining operations on surface water, groundwater, and the productivity of mining operation sites. Text of bill: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-115hjres16ih/pdf/BILLS-115hjres16ih.pdf The Democommies would have us believe that the “Stream Protection Rule” is all about protecting the environment from the evil coal industry, but it's just not that simple. There's more at stake than the environment and the coal industry. The Rule is part of the ongoing attack on our Republic form of government, as the following article demonstrates: Continuing Federalism Issues Emerge in Challenges to Stream Protection Rule January 19, 2017 Recently, the states and federal agencies have clashed in a number of environmental rulemakings and subsequent litigation over those rules. These disagreements have raised a host of important legal and policy questions, including the proper balance of power between the states and the federal government and the communication process and overall relationship between the states and federal agencies. Recently filed litigation challenging the Stream Protection Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 93,066 (Dec. 20, 2016), would prompt judicial review of many of these issues. But the likelihood of administrative or congressional action on this rule (through the Congressional Review Act) could preclude judicial input on these questions for now. If the rule is ultimately withdrawn or overturned, the manner in which it is may also present important federalism questions. Further complicating this process are two motions to intervene in two of these cases, filed by several environmental groups to defend the final Stream Protection Rule from being vacated or weakened. On January 17, 2017, a coalition of thirteen states (OH, WV, AL, AK, AR, CO, IN, MO, MT, TX, UT, WY, KY) filed a complaint against the Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), challenging the Stream Protection Rule. This rule revises OSM’s regulations implementing the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). Throughout the rulemaking process, this rule has been subject to controversy concerning both its content and OSM’s procedure for developing it and communicating with states. Both Congress and the new presidential administration have identified this rule as one they will seek to overturn. https://www.huntonnickelreportblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2017/01/Ohio-et-al_Complaint_Civil_Cover_Summons.pdf To date, the state coalition complaint is the third one challenging the Stream Protection Rule. The other challenges were filed in December separately by North Dakota and Murray Energy Corporation. Though the focus of each complaint is slightly different, each of them brings claims for violations of SMCRA, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the US Constitution. Many of these arguments present direct or indirect federalism issues. Like many environmental statutes, SMCRA uses a cooperative federalism structure where the federal government establishes minimum standards and states are thereafter primarily in charge of implementing and enforcing them. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Min. & Reclamation Ass’n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 289 (1981). SMCRA particularly emphasizes the authority of states; once a state program that regulates surface coal mining and reclamation operations has been federally approved, the state has primary jurisdiction (primacy) for enforcing SMCRA within its borders, using the federally approved state laws and regulations. https://www.huntonnickelreportblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2017/01/ND-Complaint-1.pdf https://www.huntonnickelreportblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2017/01/Murray-complaint.pdf The state coalition complaint presents an additional argument focused on the role of states in OSM’s process for developing and finalizing the Stream Protection Rule. The thirteen states, all of which are primacy states, allege that OSM did not communicate enough with them. Specifically, the states allege that OSM violated (1) the National Environmental Policy Act because it failed to meaningfully engage with cooperating state agencies, and (2) the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 because it failed to provide all relevant documents to the states, conduct more meetings with the states, and reengage with the states before finalizing the rule. Although OSM responded to comments from states on these matters when it issued the final rule, 81 Fed. Reg. at 93,071, it may not respond to these charges in litigation because the rule may be withdrawn or overturned by Congress or the new administration. This litigation would be stayed, settled, or mooted by these actions. The way in which the Stream Protection Rule is withdrawn or overturned will have federalism implications. If the rule is remanded back to the agency (instead of overturned by Congress), the substantive outcome may produce the federalism realignment the plaintiffs have sought. An interesting question may be whether remand to OSM also produces the additional communication and inclusion in the decision making process that the coalition states seek, both on this and future rulemakings. OSM’s response to these cases may also be influenced by efforts by several environmental groups to intervene in defense of the Stream Protection Rule. On January 18, 2017, several environmental groups filed motions to intervene to prevent vacatur or weakening of the standards in the Stream Protection Rule based on the claims brought by North Dakota and Murray Energy. If OSM seeks to settle these cases, the timing of settlement discussions with the plaintiffs and/or the terms of the settlement may take into account these intervention motions and the likely opposition by the environmental groups to changing the final Stream Protection Rule. https://www.huntonnickelreportblog.com/2017/01/continuing-federalism-issues-emerge-in-challenges-to-stream-protection-rule/ Here's you a little background information on the Rule in question: The ‘‘Stream Protection Rule’’ published at 81 Fed. Reg. 93066 (December 20, 2016) states the following: We have revised our regulations to define ‘‘material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area’’ and require that each permit specify the point at which adverse mining-related impacts on groundwater and surface water would reach that level of damage; collect adequate premining data about the site of the proposed mining operation and adjacent areas to establish an adequate baseline for evaluation of the impacts of mining and the effectiveness of reclamation; adjust monitoring requirements to enable timely detection and correction of any adverse trends in the quality or quantity of surface water and groundwater or the biological condition of streams; ensure protection or restoration of perennial and intermittent streams and related resources; ensure that permittees and regulatory authorities make use of advances in science and technology; ensure that land disturbed by mining operations is restored to a condition capable of supporting the uses that it was capable of supporting before mining; and update and codify the requirements and procedures for protection of threatened or endangered species and designated critical habitat. .... DATES: This rule is effective January 19, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the final rule: Dennis G. Rice, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20240. Telephone: 202–208–2829. Kathleen G. Sheehan, Esq., Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, 3 Parkway Center, 2nd Floor, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15220. Telephone: 412–937–2829. For the final environmental impact statement: Robin T. Ferguson, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20240. Telephone: 202–208–2802. For the final regulatory impact analysis: Mark Gehlhar, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20240. Telephone: 202–208–2716. For information collection matters: John A. Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20240. Telephone: 202–208–2716. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Why are we revising our regulations? III. What opportunity did we provide for public comment on the proposed rule and supporting documents? https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-20/pdf/2016-29958.pdf More info: "The Interior Department’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement estimated the rule will cost the industry $81 million a year on average between 2020 and 2040 and projects that coal prices will rise 1.3 percent from Central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin, and 0.2 percent from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming. The agency also projects that the rule will lead to an average annual employment decrease of 124 full-time coal-production jobs between 2020 and 2040, while the implementation of the rule will require an annual employment increase of 280 full-time jobs, leading to a net gain of 156 full-time jobs." https://morningconsult.com/2016/12/19/obama-administration-adds-late-coal-mining-stream-protection-rule/
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    We have now entered the twilight zone for the next 4 years. The Trump administration stance is anti environment and will put personal profit and big tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry before environmental protection. Trumps agenda to dismantle and cripple the EPA as much as possible and remove important environmental rules. This insanity will take us back to the days of the industrial revolution where there were no regulations and industries could do whatever they wanted. Clean air and water will now be pushed aside for fossil fuel production and manufacturing, land conservation and protection is now pushed aside to make way for the likes of big companies to build wherever they want even if it is in a protected wetland for example , the list goes in and on and the irony about this new era of environmental insanity is that a healthy economy requires a healthy environment We need to push back hard against the anti Christ of nature a.k.a Donald Trump.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    How did I know it was a Republican who introduced this horrible bill? You people would destroy all that is good, to include our waterways, environment, our air all for your great God, "Money".
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    The Department of Interior is another branch of the federal government like the EPA, has grown into an overreaching destructive force. I'd like to see the Congressional Review Act eliminate all the last 8 years of executive orders with one vote. In 1996 CRA was passed to force federal agencies, foreign owned corporations any new rule they intended to implement to congress for review. This has been grossly ignored and these agencies have used brute force to obtain their objective. Put a muzzle on these communist agencies. Unbind and restore!
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Do you want more Flint, Michigans? Because that's how you get more polluted water systems.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    GOP =destroyer of all that's good
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Look, the Constitution is quite clear on the fact that ONLY CONGRESS can make a law. Yet the EPA, FDA, and other federal agencies make laws that they call "rules and regulations". These can carry fines, and jail time, which in effect, makes them laws. This is clearly unconstitutional. Also President Trump needs to PARDON that 70+ years old man, whose ONLY "crime" was not calling the EPA to let them know that he was following his state laws and EPA regulations. He didn't even do anything wrong!!! Stock ponds are EXEMPT under the EPA 's own regulations.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Water is a necessity, why dirty it? It is a finite resource that we must protect. The protection is already there. Don't remove it. If anything, strengthen it.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    protect clean water every way every day
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Stop trying to destroy the planet! Please!!!!
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Streams are integral to watershed health, and without a healthy watershed our drinking water sources are jeopardized. Protect our streams!
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    This Bill could cause blatant and irreparable damage to our environment. Let the people in our department of the interior do their jobs
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    LORAKI says it better than I could. H.J.Res. 16: Disapproving a rule submitted by the Department ... ... of the Interior known as the “Stream Protection Rule”. Summary: The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress, and was published on Jan 4, 2017. Nullifies the Stream Protection Rule submitted by the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. The rule addresses the impacts of surface coal mining operations on surface water, groundwater, and the productivity of mining operation sites. Text of bill: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-115hjres16ih/pdf/BILLS-115hjres16ih.pdf The Democommies would have us believe that the “Stream Protection Rule” is all about protecting the environment from the evil coal industry, but it's just not that simple. There's more at stake than the environment and the coal industry. The Rule is part of the ongoing attack on our Republic form of government, as the following article demonstrates: Continuing Federalism Issues Emerge in Challenges to Stream Protection Rule January 19, 2017 Recently, the states and federal agencies have clashed in a number of environmental rulemakings and subsequent litigation over those rules. These disagreements have raised a host of important legal and policy questions, including the proper balance of power between the states and the federal government and the communication process and overall relationship between the states and federal agencies. Recently filed litigation challenging the Stream Protection Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 93,066 (Dec. 20, 2016), would prompt judicial review of many of these issues. But the likelihood of administrative or congressional action on this rule (through the Congressional Review Act) could preclude judicial input on these questions for now. If the rule is ultimately withdrawn or overturned, the manner in which it is may also present important federalism questions. Further complicating this process are two motions to intervene in two of these cases, filed by several environmental groups to defend the final Stream Protection Rule from being vacated or weakened. On January 17, 2017, a coalition of thirteen states (OH, WV, AL, AK, AR, CO, IN, MO, MT, TX, UT, WY, KY) filed a complaint against the Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), challenging the Stream Protection Rule. This rule revises OSM’s regulations implementing the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). Throughout the rulemaking process, this rule has been subject to controversy concerning both its content and OSM’s procedure for developing it and communicating with states. Both Congress and the new presidential administration have identified this rule as one they will seek to overturn. https://www.huntonnickelreportblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2017/01/Ohio-et-al_Complaint_Civil_Cover_Summons.pdf To date, the state coalition complaint is the third one challenging the Stream Protection Rule. The other challenges were filed in December separately by North Dakota and Murray Energy Corporation. Though the focus of each complaint is slightly different, each of them brings claims for violations of SMCRA, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the US Constitution. Many of these arguments present direct or indirect federalism issues. Like many environmental statutes, SMCRA uses a cooperative federalism structure where the federal government establishes minimum standards and states are thereafter primarily in charge of implementing and enforcing them. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Min. & Reclamation Ass’n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 289 (1981). SMCRA particularly emphasizes the authority of states; once a state program that regulates surface coal mining and reclamation operations has been federally approved, the state has primary jurisdiction (primacy) for enforcing SMCRA within its borders, using the federally approved state laws and regulations. https://www.huntonnickelreportblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2017/01/ND-Complaint-1.pdf https://www.huntonnickelreportblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2017/01/Murray-complaint.pdf The state coalition complaint presents an additional argument focused on the role of states in OSM’s process for developing and finalizing the Stream Protection Rule. The thirteen states, all of which are primacy states, allege that OSM did not communicate enough with them. Specifically, the states allege that OSM violated (1) the National Environmental Policy Act because it failed to meaningfully engage with cooperating state agencies, and (2) the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 because it failed to provide all relevant documents to the states, conduct more meetings with the states, and reengage with the states before finalizing the rule. Although OSM responded to comments from states on these matters when it issued the final rule, 81 Fed. Reg. at 93,071, it may not respond to these charges in litigation because the rule may be withdrawn or overturned by Congress or the new administration. This litigation would be stayed, settled, or mooted by these actions. The way in which the Stream Protection Rule is withdrawn or overturned will have federalism implications. If the rule is remanded back to the agency (instead of overturned by Congress), the substantive outcome may produce the federalism realignment the plaintiffs have sought. An interesting question may be whether remand to OSM also produces the additional communication and inclusion in the decision making process that the coalition states seek, both on this and future rulemakings. OSM’s response to these cases may also be influenced by efforts by several environmental groups to intervene in defense of the Stream Protection Rule. On January 18, 2017, several environmental groups filed motions to intervene to prevent vacatur or weakening of the standards in the Stream Protection Rule based on the claims brought by North Dakota and Murray Energy. If OSM seeks to settle these cases, the timing of settlement discussions with the plaintiffs and/or the terms of the settlement may take into account these intervention motions and the likely opposition by the environmental groups to changing the final Stream Protection Rule. https://www.huntonnickelreportblog.com/2017/01/continuing-federalism-issues-emerge-in-challenges-to-stream-protection-rule/ Here's you a little background information on the Rule in question: The ‘‘Stream Protection Rule’’ published at 81 Fed. Reg. 93066 (December 20, 2016) states the following: We have revised our regulations to define ‘‘material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area’’ and require that each permit specify the point at which adverse mining-related impacts on groundwater and surface water would reach that level of damage; collect adequate premining data about the site of the proposed mining operation and adjacent areas to establish an adequate baseline for evaluation of the impacts of mining and the effectiveness of reclamation; adjust monitoring requirements to enable timely detection and correction of any adverse trends in the quality or quantity of surface water and groundwater or the biological condition of streams; ensure protection or restoration of perennial and intermittent streams and related resources; ensure that permittees and regulatory authorities make use of advances in science and technology; ensure that land disturbed by mining operations is restored to a condition capable of supporting the uses that it was capable of supporting before mining; and update and codify the requirements and procedures for protection of threatened or endangered species and designated critical habitat. .... DATES: This rule is effective January 19, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the final rule: Dennis G. Rice, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20240. Telephone: 202–208–2829. Kathleen G. Sheehan, Esq., Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, 3 Parkway Center, 2nd Floor, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15220. Telephone: 412–937–2829. For the final environmental impact statement: Robin T. Ferguson, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20240. Telephone: 202–208–2802. For the final regulatory impact analysis: Mark Gehlhar, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20240. Telephone: 202–208–2716. For information collection matters: John A. Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20240. Telephone: 202–208–2716. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Why are we revising our regulations? III. What opportunity did we provide for public comment on the proposed rule and supporting documents? https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-20/pdf/2016-29958.pdf More info: "The Interior Department’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement estimated the rule will cost the industry $81 million a year on average between 2020 and 2040 and projects that coal prices will rise 1.3 percent from Central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin, and 0.2 percent from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming. The agency also projects that the rule will lead to an average annual employment decrease of 124 full-time coal-production jobs between 2020 and 2040, while the implementation of the rule will require an annual employment increase of 280 full-time jobs, leading to a net gain of 156 full-time jobs." https://morningconsult.com/2016/12/19/obama-administration-adds-late-coal-mining-stream-protection-rule/
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Profits over protection of water is unacceptable. Keep the protections in place, they're there for good reason!
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Water quality and human health should always take precedence over opportunities for mining or industry. The environment is also at risk here. More thought and science needs to go into these decisions, and right now there is a clear disregard for both.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Protect all our waterways and streams! I might want to drink from them.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Protect our drinking water. Look forward to clean energy.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Take care of our environment and not your bank account 😡
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE