[Coach_Owens87]

I realize this discussion is not about Mr. Harden, but your opinion (at no fault of your own)of him was based on a one sided article by Mr. Ward, and I wanted to give you a chance to consider what was actually said by Mr. Harden.

I totally disagree with you about the water quailty downstream of mine sites, I know of several mining operations where the water quailty is just as good or better than it was before mining started. We have mined areas where the water quailty was deficient prior to mining and was still low quailty after mining was completed.

I will give you credit, your the first person that I've heard who is anti-coal to say that highway construction uses the same methods as surface mining. Here's one big difference between road construction and surface mining, next time you drive by a construction site look at how they control the silt and water run off, you should see a black silt fence at the edge of the distrubed area with a few straw bails placed here and there, that's it, that's their silt control. Before the first tree can be cut, before the first foot of road can be built a surface mine has to construct a sediment pond or ponds designed for the size of the hollows their located in, and ditches have to be constructed below all distrubed areas.

Do you realize how many acres on the average are distrubed per mile of a 4 lane highway? Try around 36 acres per mile, that's based on a average width of 300 feet.

I knew you would disagree with me on water quality, you work in the coal industry, so you're stance is obvious. The mining industry wants people to think they don't harm water qaulity, when in most cases they do. They're have only been a few studies on water quality in astern ky, the most notable was the 2005 EPA report. They stated that mining was causing a significant in crease in chemicals downstream, and was dramatically decreasing aquatic life. They're was also a study done by some biologist from U of L that stated the same things. They compared an active mine site, with some old reclaimed one, and compared their effects on water quality. Many people like to simply think that controlling run-off will protect water quality, which is completely wrong. The root system of trees, and plants, and the leafs laying on the ground, naturally filter the water, and absorb large amounts of water before they reach the stream, MTR completely destroys this natural process. In many cases the whole headwater streams are buried, which just intensifies the problem and causes major flooding.

I don't know a whole lot about road construction, or the committee's who oversee it, but I do know that they use the same type of explosives, which is a ammonium nitrate based explosive. The process's are very similar also. I like that little state about 1 mile of road disturbing 36 acres, which is a silly argument when you compare that to a 5-600 acre mine site. A 600 acre mine site would be as much land disturbance as 16 miles of of a four lane highway, and since most highways here are 2 lane, that means one 6000 acre mine site would be equivalent to 32 miles of road, which everyone could use, and not destroyed wasted land, which is what MTR leaves behind. People here are going without decent roads to their homes ( alot of which are destroyed by overweight coal trucks), but were destroying enough land to build hundreds of miles of roads, don't make sense to me.

The sediment ponds you so happily talk about are jokes, most are very poorly constructed, just like the one that broke in Inez. They're also dozens of more that could break at any point, and those are just the ones we know about. The one in Marsh Fork WV is probably the most notable. SO If all I have to rely on to protect my water is a **** poor constructed pond holding back millions of gallons of sludge, I don't feel to comfortable.