Dept. of Environmental Protection in WV continues to prove its name is an oxymoron

Do you ever get the feeling the government's "protection" agencies are there to protect corporate interests rather than the environment or the people? The bungling of the spill and the ensuing campaign of misinformation, the testing labs that have for years been diluting water samples from coal sites, permits issued for surface mining near forests and communities.... you'll have to pardon my cynicism. I truly admire the many good people who are putting up a brave fight to protect the environment throughout Appalachia but it seems at every turn the very agencies that are supposed to protect our homes seem to be more concerned with safeguarding corporate interests.

http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20141028/GZ01/141029175/1419
The Charleston Gazette
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
DEP wants suit by foes of mine near state forest tossed
By Rick Steelhammer, Staff writer

A lawyer for the state Department of Environmental Protection says opponents of a surface mine near Kanawha State Forest “failed to exhaust administrative remedies” before suing over the mine’s permit in Kanawha Circuit Court.

The DEP petition, filed Tuesday in circuit court by DEP attorney Jason Wandling, was in response to a petition by David C. Cordell and other opponents of Keystone Development’s No. 2 surface mine along Middlelick Branch of Davis Creek, for which the DEP issued a permit last May. Cordell’s petition maintains that the permit was improperly issued and wants Kanawha Circuit Judge James Stucky to halt work on the 418-acre mine.

Cordell and others allege that the mine threatens the health and safety of residents of nearby Loudendale and the Charleston neighborhoods of Loudon Heights and Mount Alpha and imperils the habitat for endangered bats, among other contentions.

In the petition to dismiss Cordell’s petition, DEP argues that the mine opponents “claims are properly pending before the Surface Mine Board, the administrative body specifically tasked with the review of allegations like those advanced here. Accordingly, this court should dismiss the petition with prejudice.” ....

- See more at: http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20141028/GZ01/141029175/1419#sthash.o87qaCuW.dpuf