U.S. Code » Title 30 » Chapter CHAPTER 25— SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V— CONTROL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SURFACE COAL MINING

30 U.S.C. § 1255

State laws

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 30 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) No State law or regulation in effect on August 3, 1977, or which may become effective thereafter, shall be superseded by any provision of this chapter or any regulation issued pursuant thereto, except insofar as such State law or regulation is inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter.(b) Any provision of any State law or regulation in effect upon August 3, 1977, or which may become effective thereafter, which provides for more stringent land use and environmental controls and regulations of surface coal mining and reclamation operation than do the provisions of this chapter or any regulation issued pursuant thereto shall not be construed to be inconsistent with this chapter. The Secretary shall set forth any State law or regulation which is construed to be inconsistent with this chapter. Any provision of any State law or regulation in effect on August 3, 1977, or which may become effective thereafter, which provides for the control and regulation of surface mining and reclamation operations for which no provision is contained in this chapter shall not be construed to be inconsistent with this chapter.(Pub. L. 95–87, title V, § 505, Aug. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 473.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2022 · leading case: Ohio Valley Env't Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ohio Valley Env't Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “30 U.S.C. § 1255 (b) (2000). [6] Where a state does not have a federally approved SMCRA program in place, surface mining operations within that state must be permitted by the Secretary of the Interior.”
DK Excavating, Inc. v. Miano, 549 S.E.2d 280 (W. Va. 2001). · cites it 10× “What DK overlooks in its analysis of this issue is the language of 30 U.S.C. § 1255 , which provides that any "State law or regulation [that] is inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter [25]" is superseded by the provisions of SMCRA.”
Arsenal Coal Co. v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Env't Resources, 477 A.2d 1333 (Pa. 1984). · cites it 2× “[4] While the federal Act, by Section 505(b), 30 U.S.C. § 1255 (b), permits the state regulatory authority to make more stringent the state law in effect on August 3, 1977, the General Assembly of this Commonwealth enacted a limitation on the power of the Environmental Quality…”
Trs. for Alaska, Alaska Ctr. for the Env't v. Gorsuch, 835 P.2d 1239 (Alaska 1992). · cites it 4× “In light of this finding and the legislature's express intent to assume exclusive jurisdiction, we do not believe the legislature intended the state act to be inconsistent with the federal act. Moreover, section 505(a) of SMCRA provides that state laws or regulations which are…”
Canestraro v. Faerber, 374 S.E.2d 319 (W. Va. 1988). · cites it 3× “But what if a state law is approved that is less stringent or effective? The federal act further provides in 30 U.S.C. § 1255 (a), titled “State Laws” that: (a) No State law or regulation in effect on the date of enactment of this Act [enacted Aug.”
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. Norton, 137 F. Supp. 2d 687 (S.D.W. Va 2001). · cites it 6× “” 8 30 U.S.C. § 1255 (a) (emphasis added). The only limitation to this preemption rule is for “any State law or regulation .”
Antco, Inc. v. Dodge Fuel Corp., 550 S.E.2d 622 (W. Va. 2001). · cites it 2× “But what if a state law is approved that is less stringent or effective? The federal act further provides in 30 U.S.C. § 1255 (a), titled "State Laws" that: "(a) No State law or regulation in effect on the date of enactment of this Act [enacted Aug.”
Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. v. State, 766 P.2d 537 (Wyo. 1988). “30 U.S.C. § 1255 (b). The federal statute created minimum environmental performance standards but maintained for the states discretion to adopt more stringent regulations designed to meet the peculiar needs of the state.”
Pennsylvania Coal Ass'n v. Babbitt, 63 F.3d 231 (3rd Cir. 1995). · cites it 4× “The court acknowledged that section 505(b) of the SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. § 1255 (b), explicitly permits states to enact “more stringent land use and environmental controls and regulations,” but it read that provision as “only intended to allow states to impose more stringent…”
Cat Run Coal Co. v. Babbitt, 932 F. Supp. 772 (S.D.W. Va 1996). · cites it 2× “13 Section 505 of the SMCRA, *780 30 U.S.C. § 1255 , contains the requirements for state laws and regulations which become effective under the SMCRA: “(a) No State law or regulation in effect [upon the date of enactment of this Act], or which may become effective thereafter,…”
Drummond Coal Co., Cross-Appellee v. James G. Watt, Cross-Appellant, 735 F.2d 469 (11th Cir. 1984). “a State program which demonstrates that such State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of this Act”); 30 U.S.C.A. § 1255 (State laws are not preempted by the Act unless inconsistent with it).”
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. Norton, 147 F. Supp. 2d 474 (S.D.W. Va 2001). · cites it 2× “2001) (citing 30 U.S.C. § 1255 (a)). Because OSM had found West Virginia’s alternative bonding system was incapable of meeting the objectives and purposes of the conventional federal bonding program, the Court concluded the state bonding program was superseded by federal law.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.