Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mining Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House advances bill to publish draft cumulative hydrologic impact analyses earlier in coal permit reviews
Summary
House Bill 633 (HB 6 33 in the transcript) would require the Department of Environmental Quality to produce a draft cumulative hydrologic impact analysis earlier in the coal strip‑mine permitting process so the public can comment on the CHIA before the agency issues its final decision; the committee passed the bill overwhelmingly.
Representative Perry sponsored House Bill 633 (referred to in the transcript as House Bill 6 33), a bill to change how the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) handles cumulative hydrologic impact analyses (CHIAs) in coal mine permitting.
Perry told the House the CHIA currently is prepared and released concurrently with the DEQ’s final permit decision, which gives the public little meaningful time to review the underlying hydrologic analysis that informs the department’s findings. House Bill 6 33 would require DEQ to produce a draft CHIA earlier in the review process and afford a public comment period on the draft CHIA. Perry said publishing a draft CHIA earlier should improve transparency, allow concerns about assumptions or data to be raised earlier, and reduce litigation driven by late‑emerging issues.
Representative Edwards spoke in support and suggested a longer comment window (60 days) as a wish list amendment for the Senate. No substantive opposition was recorded in the transcript excerpt. On second reading the clerk recorded 98 representatives voting aye and 1 vote no; House Bill 6 33 passed second reading.
Why it matters The CHIA is a central technical document used to evaluate how new or expanded coal operations could affect water resources in a watershed. Releasing a draft for public review before the agency issues its final decision aims to give neighboring landowners and other stakeholders an opportunity to identify errors or ask for clarifications on hydrologic assumptions during the permitting process rather than challenging the decision through litigation after the fact.
Action - Motion to recommend do pass (mover: Representative Perry). Final second‑reading vote recorded by the clerk: 98 yes, 1 no. Outcome: passed second reading.
