THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 IN OKLAHOMA: STATE AND FEDERAL COHABITATION

The enforcement of the SMCRA in Oklahoma has led to improvements and transformations in the coal industry, state and federal regulatory agencies and the public. The catalyst for these changes was the federal takeover of inspection and enforcement of the SMCRA in Oklahoma with the state carrying on all other mining regulatory activities from 1984 through 1987. This pattern of cohabitation differed from that in Tennessee where OSM took over all enforcement of the SMCRA or that in states that enter into cooperative agreements to provide state regulation of coal mining on federal lands within the state. Cohabitation in Oklahoma produced a new, more positive attitude toward cooperative federalism by both federal and state regulatory bodies that might serve as a model for other states with OSM maintaining state agency support for policy objectives while allowing the state reasonable decisional discretion.     

ASSESSING THE IMPACTS OF THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT

Even a dozen years since the passage of the Surface Mining. Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) there is little agreement on how well i t has worked. The paper attempts to assess the impacts of SMCRA in six major surface coal producing states. Although i t is not possible to make an unqualified overall national assessment, the evidence presented in the paper indicates that in many (but by no means all) cases, surface coal mining is now carried out in environmentally less destructive ways then before the Act. However, the accomplishments have fallen far short of expectations. The situation in some states has gotten worse than before the Act. Overall, the impact of the Act on the ground has been mixed and has depended on the rigor with which the Act has been implemented in individual coal states.     

SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT: A UTAH PERSPECTIVE

The authority to regulate the coal industry a t the state level, under state statute and rules, the importance of the coal industry to the state, the importance of an environmentally sound regulatory program, and the benefit of a state-managed abandoned mine reclamation program, in short the ability of the state to manage its own natural resources, make state primacy a necessity, not an option.
Implementation of SMCRA cannot be measured in the myriad of oversight statistics. Effectiveness means cost-effective, timely reclamation of abandoned sites; consistent, workable rules and regulatory practices; responsive program management; and compliance which is internalized in the mine's operations.     

FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SURFACE MINING POLICY

The federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 not only established national performance standards and permitting procedures for the coal industry, but also provided for stateprimacy. The principle of state primary is both simple and intuitively appealing: Because states do not have adequate resources to develop effective regulatory programs, the federal government would set up comprehensive procedures and criteria to guide the states in preparing their own plans. The obvious advantage of state primacy is that i t provides for flexibility in implementation.
Ultimately, state primacy is an experiment in cooperative federalism, a sharing of authority and responsibility between the states and the federal government to insure both the general welfare and sensitivity to local conditions. The history of surface mining regulation is instructive because i t points out the pitfalls and promise of cooperative federalism as well as the critical role of the courts in making state primacy work.     

THE STATES AND DEREGULATION: THE CASE OF SURFACE MINING

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), passed to correct the abuses of surface mining, assigned key implementation roles to the states. While the federal government originally enforced SMCRA, states could operate the program themselves. Once states decided to run their own program the federal government would oversee them to insure they properly enforce the Act. This research examines the enforcement behavior of states in the 1980s. The results indicate that early in the Reagan administration eastern states enforced the SMCRA less stringently than other states. Eastern states increased their level of enforcement later in the 1980s in response to pressures for increased federal oversight from Congress, interest groups and others.     

THE EXCLUSION OF ILLEGAL HISPANICS IN AGENDA-SETTING: THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986

In November of 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, designed primarily to control illegal Hispanic residents was signed into law. The new policy as implemented failed to remove, via legalization, illegal residents residing within the United States. The perspectives of Hispanic organiza- tions and 594 illegal residents were collected and evaluated to ascertain those variables that may have served to negate this public policy. The utilization of a subsequent qualitative and discriminant analysis indicated that the exclusion and/or lack of consideration given the perspectives of policy targeted groups and individuals in agenda setting, adversely affected the efficacy of the policy-making process, and thus, the laws it creates.     

FEDERAL COURT INVOLVEMENT IN THE APPLICATION OF SURFACE MINING LAW

This article surveys 122 federal cases reported in the Surface Mining Law Summary from the earliest legislation under SMCRA to the end of 1987. The analysis distinguished between cases in which all OSMRE regulations or applications of SMCRA were upheld by the federal courts, and those in which one or more regulations/applications were overturned. The analysis further classifies the cases according to whether the decisions were favorable to industry (or, conversely, to environmental/citizen groups), according to whether the issues involved were primarily of narrow private right (or, conversely, of broad public policy), and according to state-of-origin. Finally, separate examination of those cases in which OSMRE's discretion in the enforcement of SMCRA was restricted is provided. The author concludes t h a t both the federal courts and OSMRE have been reasonably even-handed in their application of SMCRA, contrary to the earlier expectations of some proponents and opponents of surface coal mining regulation in the United States.