Appendix — Hodel v. Indiana
Supreme Court brief1981
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
| rrveD
No. 80-231 MOV 20 1980
In The MICHAEL RODAK, Jr. CLERK
Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1980
CECIL D. ANDRUS, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL,
V.
Appellants,
STATE OF INDIANA, ET AL,
Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
JOINT APPENDIX
LAWN
MMS ices
WADE H. McCREE, JR.
‘Bolicitor General
‘JAMES W. MOORMAN
Assistant Attorney General
LOUIS F. CLAIBORNE
Deputy Solicitor General
PETER BUSCEMI
Assistant to the Solicitor
_ General
PETER R. STEENLAND, JR.
MICHAEL A. McCORD
Attorneys
pA eprom of Justice —
ashington, D.C. 20580
(202) 633-2217 }
———$——————
————_-———
THEODORE L. SENDAK
Attorney General
State of Indiana
JACK R. O'NEILL
Deputy Attorney General
State of Indiana
219 State House
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
(817) 282-6357
For State of Indiana,
Otis R. Bowen, M.D.,
Governor, Indiana Department
of Natural Resources, and
Joseph D. Cloud, Director.
HARRY T. ICE
G. DANIEL KELLEY, JR.
BYRON L. MYERS
111 Monument Circle
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
(817) 635-1218
For Indiana Coal Association,
Meadowlark Farms, Inc.,
AMAX Coal Company, a
Division of AMAX Inc.,
Peabody Coal Company, and
John A. Conlon.
» ae Midwest Law Printing Co., Chicago
—_—_———we
—_—_——_———
a
60601, Financial 6-3988
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DOCKET ENTRIES
PAGE
State of Indiana, et al. v. Cecil D. Andrus, et al.,
Be Gar HRP sul asadedehes sata nahsadvonsascuboodaiotonsenssabusy 1
Indiana Coal Association, et al. v. United States,
OG iis; ee Be PRICE, shake bidstasctdestiensicncivadpeentins 7
PLEADINGS
Complaint, State of Indiana, et al. v. Cecil D.
Andrus, et al., No. IP 78-500-C ou... cescssceeeeeee 13
Complaint, Indiana Coal Association, et al. v.
United States, et al., No. IP 78-501-C ............... 24
Motion for Preliminary Injunction ..................s0000 36
Joint Petition For Expedited Trial And Decision
And Stipulation As To Procedure ..............ccc00 48
EVIDENCE
Plaintiffs’ [Appellees’] Exhibits:
Exhibit No. 3 to Deposition of R. Neil Sampson —
Report Of The Interagency Task Force On The
Issue Of A Moratorium Or A Ban On Mining In
Prime Agricultural Lands. .................cccccssssssccsees 51
Exhibit 1, Map of Illinois Coal Basin. ................... 65
Exhibit 2, Map of Surface Mineable Reserves and
Pe tr IIE sininbietbieed chetcedtiicrntnascidbeciceibiseevwase 66
Exhibit 3, Map of Underground Mineable
ITU: cits ncn taksastide nhcsenisbitdhguasDatiisidendiebdshacunsiseradarnticcc 67
Exhibit 4, Map of Prime Farmland ...............00000 68
Exhibit 5, Affidavit of Charles E. Wier ............... 69
Exhibit 6, Affidavit of Robert L. Major ............... 72
Exhibit 11, Affidavit of Gilbert S. Graves ........... 76
il
Exhibit 12, Affidavit of William M. Kester, Jr. ...... 77
Exhibit 13, Affidavit of Ralph E. Clark .............. 81
Exhibit 14, Plaintiffs’ Request for Admissions ....... 83
Exhibit 20, Affidavit of Loyd BR. Jones ................. 95
Exhibit 40, Review of Reclamation Plans ............ 98
issn agp Re OE SORA BE SETAE 102
Defendants’ [Appellants’] Exhibits:
Report of 208 Water Quality Program .................. 104
Exhibit A, Affidavit of Donald a ee 105
Reference 1, Article by David P. Bernard ........... 112
Exhibit B, Affidavit of Donald E. McCormack ...... 121
Exhibit C, Affidavit of Raymond I. Dideriksen ..... 123
Exhibit F, Affidavit of Edgar A. Imhoff ............ 127
Exhibit G, Affidavit of Elvin V. Wickline .............. 129
Exhibit H, Affidavit of Allen oy Po 130
Transcript of Hearing Held on April 18, 1979:
Testimony of Dr. William W. a 133
Testimony of Alten F. Grandt ooccccccccssssssssseoooeccs..... 138
Testimony of Glenn L. Kaffenberger ..................... 145
Testimony of Ronald L. LeWi8 o.eecccsssssssesocoosssssss..... 148
Testimony of Elvin V. Wickline -oeccccsscccccoosssss....... 153
No. 80-231
In The
Supreme Court of the Anited States
October Term, 1980
CECIL D. ANDRUS, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL..,
Appellants,
V.
STATE OF INDIANA, ET AL.,
Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
JOINT APPENDIX
DOCKET ENTRIES
State of Indiana, et al. v. Cecil D. Andrus, et al.,
No. IP 78-500-C
Date Proceedings
8/16/78—Complaint filed. Summons issued. Cover sheet
filed.
8/16/78—Joint Motion for Consolidation filed.
8/17/79—Plaintiff fiels (sic) Moton (sic) for leave to
amend by interlineation; c/s.
8/29/78—U.S. Marshals return-Summons & Complaint &
Motion served on the U.S. Dept. of Interior by
certified mail on 8/17/78. Served on Walter J.
Heine, Dir. of the Office of Surface Mining by
certified mail on 8/17/78. Served on the Office
of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement
by certified mail on 8/17/78. Served on Cecil
Andrus, See. of the U.S. Dept. of Interior by
certified mail on 8/17/78. Served on Griffin B.
Bell by certified mail on 8/17/78. Served on
Virginia D. McCarty, U.S. Atty. on 8/17/78.
Fee $56.00.
9/6/78—Court enters order of consolidation with Cause
Number: IP78-501-C and the causes are con-
solidated for all purposes and on all issues un-
der Civil Cause Number: IP78-500-C.
9/6/78—Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for leave to
amend their complaint by interlineation. Para-
graph 28, line 3, page 5, should be amended to
read August 3, 1977 instead of August 30, 1977.
10/13/78—Defendants file motion for enlargement of time,
c/s.
10/16/78—Court grants an extension of time to defend-
ant to answer or otherwise plead. Time ex-
tended to and including November 15, 1978.
ee
Date Proceedings
11/15/78—Defendants file motion for enlargement of time,
c/s. |
11/16/78 Court grants the defendants’ motion for exten-
sion of time to plead to the plaintiffs’ complaint,
time is now extended to and including November
22, 1978. (S.E.)
11/22/78—Government files Motion to Dismiss.
12/7/78—Plaintiffs file motion for extension of time to
file answer brief on motion to dismiss. ¢/s
12/11/78—Plaintiff files motion for enlargement of time,
c/s.
12/12/78—Court grants the plaintiffs motion for extension
of time to file answer brief to the defendants
motion to dismiss, time is now extended to and
including Jan 7, 1979 (S.E.)
12/14/78—Court grants the State of Indiana’s motion for
extension of time to respond to the defendants
motion to dismiss, time is now extended to and
including Jan 15, 1979 (S.E.)
1/8/79—Motion of Plaintiffs, Indiana Coal Association,
Meadowlark Farms, Inc., Amax Coal Company,
Peabody Coal Company and John A. Conlon
for further extension of time to file brief in
opposition to motion to dismiss ¢/s.
1/11/79—Plaintiff files Motion for enlargement of time;
c/s.
1/11/79—Court grants the plaintiff’s moiton (sic) for ex-
tension of time to file answer brief to the defend-
ants motion to dismiss, time is now extended to
and including Jan 17, 1979 (S.E.)
1/15/79—Notice of taking deposition of Richard M. Mc-
Nabb filed; ¢/s.
1/17/79—State’s Response to Federal Defendant’s Mo-
tion to Dismiss; ¢/s.
Sills
Date Proceedings
1/18/79--Brief of plaintiffs, Indiana Coal Association,
Peabody Coal Company, Amax Coal Company,
Meadowlark Farms, Inc. and John A. Conlon,
in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss; ¢/s
1/15/79—Court grants the State of Indiana’s motion for
extension of time to respond to the defendants
motion to dismiss, time is now extended to and
including January 17, 1979. (S.E.)
1/22/79—Defendant files motion for stay of discovery
pending a ruling on defendants’ motion to dis-
miss, ¢/Ss.
1/23/79—Court grants the Governments motion to stay
discovery until the Court has ruled on the mo-
tion to dismiss. (S.E.)
1/26/79—State of Indiana’s Motion to reconsider order
granting defendant’s Motion for stay of dis-
covery; ¢/s
2/6/79—Defendant files answer in opposition to State
of Indiana’s motion to reconsider order granting
defendants’ motion for stay of discovery with
memorandum in support thereof, c/s.
2/8/79—Motion of plaintiffs, Indiana Coal Assoc., Amax,
Peabody and Conlon for the court to reconsider
its order granting defendants’ motion for a stay
of discovery, ¢/s.
3/9/79—Plaintiffs file pleadings:
1) Motion for Preliminary Injunction; ¢/s
2) Plaintiffs’ request for admissions; ¢/s
3) Plaintiffs’ affidavits and exhibits in sup-
port of Motion for Preliminary Injunc-
tion and in opposition to defendants’ Mo-
tion to Dismiss
3/12/79—Plaintiffs file pleadings:
1) Request for court to require defendants
to respond to request for admissions with-
in ten days; c/s.
sali
Date Proceedings
2) Request for immediate hearing on mo-
tion for preliminary injunction; c/s.
3/13/79—Plaintiffs, Indiana Coal Association, et al files
pleadings:
1) Plaintiffs’ Indiana Coal Association, Pea-
body Coal Company, Amax Coal Com-
pany, Meadowlark Farms, Inc. and John
A. Conlon, Motion for court to consider
extra-pleading matters and to treat de-
fendants’ motion to dismiss as a motion
for summary judgment;
2) Reply Memorandum in support of de-
fendant’s Motion to Dismiss; ¢/s.
3/27/79—Defendants by counsel filed Motion for enlarge-
ment of time; ¢/s.
3/27/79—Court grants the defendant’s motion for exten-
sion of time to respond to the plaintiff’s plead-
ings, time is now extended to and including
April 16, 1979. (S.E.)
4/3/79—Plaintiff Indiana Coal Assoc. et al files plead-
ings:
1) Notice of deposition, ¢/s.
2) Brief in support of motion for prelimi-
nary injunction and in reply to defend-
, ant’s reply brief in support of motion to
dismiss, ¢/s.
4/12/79—Defendants files Motion for enlargement of time;
c/s.
4/17/79—Deposition of R. NEIL SAMPSON filed. -
4/13/79—Court grants the Governments motion for exten-
sion of time to respond to the plaintiffs plead-
ings, time is now extended to and including
May 1, 1979. (S.E.)
4/17/79—Memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion
for preliminary relief and in support of defend-
=
Date Proceedings
ants’ motion to dismiss filed by defendants, c/s.
4/17/79—Defendant files response to request for admis-
sions, ¢/s.
4/18/79—Affidavits of Dan Lynn Rumbly and Randy E.
Staley.
5/4/79—State's Post-Hearing Brief filed; ¢/s.
5/4/79—Defendants’ Post-Trial brief; c/s
5/4/79-—Defendants file Motion for leave to offer addi-
tional exhibits and evidence; c/s
5/4/79—Post-Hearing Brief in support of plaintifffs’
(sic) Motion for Preliminary Injunction; ¢/s.
8/21/79—Supplement to Motion to Dismiss filed by Fed-
eral Defendants, c/s
2/27/80—Joint petition for expedited trial and decision
ana stipulation as to procedure filed by the
Parties. Court files order on joint petition for
expedited trial and decision and stipulation as
to procedure. (S.E.) Court now set argument on
this matter for 10:00 A.M. April 24, 1980.
3/14/80—Plaintiff files trial brief on the merits, c/s.
4/3/80—Defendants file trial brief on the merits, ¢/s.
4/9/80—Plaintiff files joint motion for enlargement of
time, ¢/s.
4/11/80—Court now Grants the plaintiffs’ motion for ex-
tension of time to file their reply briefs to and
including April 21, 1980.
4/18/80—Plaintiff files reply trial brief on the merits,
c/s.
6/6/80—Plaintiffs file motion to withdraw an issue, ¢/s.
6/10/80—Court now grants the plaintiff’s motion to with-
draw an issue.
~
Date Proceedings
6/10/80—Court files Order and Judgment finding for the
plaintiffs and against defendants. (SE.) Court
files Memorandum of decision. Case Closed. En-
tered June 11, 1980. O.B. Vol. 26—Page 304.
6/16/80—Federal defendants file notice of appeal to the
Supreme Court of the United States from the
final order and judgment entered in this action
on June 10, 1980. Copy of the notice sent to the
counsel of record and the court reporter. Copy
of the notice of appeal, docket entries, Appli-
cation for a stay of order and copy of the judg-
ment sent to the Supreme Court. Application
for a stay of order filed, c/s.
6/18/80—Plaintiff files motion for time to respond to
defendants’ motion to stay, ¢/s.
6/18/80—Court now Grants the plaintiffs’ motion for ex-
tension of time to respond to the defendants’
motion to stay.
6/23/80—Plaintiff files memorandum in opposition to mo-
tion to stay, c/s.
6/24/80—Plaintiff files submission of exhibit A, ¢/s.
6/25/80—Court now Denies application of federal defend-
ants for a stay of the June 10, 1980 order of
this court. Bs
7/2/80—Official Reporter’s transcript of argument on
merits filed.
7/7/80—Certified copy of Order from Supreme Court
filed. Judgment of district court stayed pending
the filing and disposition of appeal by Supreme
Court.
10/10/80—Certified copy of order from Supreme Court
filed, and probable jurisdiction is noted.
om,
Indiana Coal Association, et al. v. United States, et al.,
No. IP 78-501-C
Date Proceedings
8/16/78—Complaint filed. Summons issued. Cover sheet
filed.
8/16/78—Joint Motion for Consolidation filed.
8/29/78—U.S. Marshals return-Summons, Complaint &
Motion served on U.S. Dept. of the Interior by
certified mail on 8/17/78. Served on Walter J.
Heine, Director of the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation & Enforcement by certified mail
on 8/17/78. Served on the Office of Surface Min-
ing Reclamation & Enforcement by certified mail
on 8/17/78. Served on Cecil D. Andrus, Sec. of
the U.S. Dept. of the Interior by certified mail
on 8/17/78. Served on the US. Atty. General by
certified mail on 8/22/78. Fee $35.00
9/6/78—Court enters order of consolidation with Cause
Number: IP78-500-C and the causes are con-
solidated for all purposes and on all issues un-
der Civil Cause Number: IP78-500-C.
11/22/78—Government files Motion to dismiss
12/7/78—Plaintiffs files motion for extension of time to
file answer brief on motion to dismiss. ¢/s
12/11/79—Piaintiff files motion for enlargement of time,
c/s.
12/12/78—Court grants the plaintiffs motion for extension
of time to file answer brief to the defendants
motion ot (sic) dismiss, time is now extended to
and including Jan 7, 1979. (S.E.)
12/14/78—Court grants the State of Indianas’ (sic) motion
for extension of time to respond to the defend-
ants motion to dismiss, time is now extended
to and including Jan 15, 1979 (S.E.)
hn
Date Proceedings
1/8/79—Motion by plaintiffs, Indiana Coal Association,
Meadowlark Farms, Inc., Amax Coal Company,
Peabody Coal Company and John A. Conlon
for further extension of time to file brief in op-
position to motion to dismiss; ¢/s.
1/11/79—Plaintiff files Motion for enlargement of time;
c/s.
1/11/79—Court grants the plaintiff’s moiton (sic) for ex-
tension of time to file answer brief to the de-
fendants motion to dismiss, time is now extended
to and including Jan 17, 1979 (S.E.)
1/18/79—Brief of plaintiffs, Indiana Coal Association,
Peabody Coal Company, Amax Coal Company,
Meadowlark Farms, Inc. and John A. Conlon,
in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss; ¢/s.
1/15/79—Court grants the State of Indiana’s motion for
extension of time to respond to the defendant’s
motion to dismiss, time is now extended to and
including January 17, 1979. (S.E.)
1/22/79—Defendant files motion for stay of discovery
pending a ruling on defendants’ motion to dis-
miss, ¢/s.
1/23/79—Court grants the Governments motion to stay
discovery until the Court has ruled on the mo-
tion to dismiss. (S.E.)
1/26/79—State of Indiana’s Motion to reconsider order
granting defendants motion for stay of discov-
ery; c/s
2/6/79—Defendant files answer in opposition to State of
Indiana’s motion to reconsider order granting
defendants’ motion for stay of discovery with
memorandum in support thereof, ¢/s.
2/8/79—Motion of plaintiffs, Ind. Coal Assoc., Amax,
Peabody, and Conlon for the court to recon-
nw
Date Proceedings
sider its order granting defendants’ motion for
a stay of discovery filed, c/s.
3/9/78—Plaintiffs file pleadings:
1) Plaintiffs’ request for admissions; c/s
2) Motion for preliminary injunction; ¢/s
3) Plaintiffs’ Affidavits and exhibits in sup-
port of motion for preliminary injunction
and in opposition to defendants’ Motion
to dismiss.
3/12/79—Plaintiffs file pleadings:
1) Request for court to require defendants to
respond to request for admissions within
ten days; ¢/s.
2) Request for immediate hearing on motion
for preliminary injunction; c/s.
3/13/79—Plaintiffs, Indiana Coal Association, et al. files
pleadings:
1) Plaintiffs’ Indiana Coal Association, Pea-
body Coal Company, Amax Coal Com-
pany, Meadowlark Farms, Ine. and John
A. Conlon, Motion for court to consider
extra-pleading matters and to treat de-
fendants’ motion to dismiss as a motion
for summary judgment; c/s.
2) Reply Memorandum in support of de-
fendant’s Motion to Dismiss; ¢/s.
3/27/79—Defendants file Moiton (sic) for enlargement of
time; c/s.
3/27/79—Court grants the defendants motion for exten-
sion of time to respond to the plaintiffs plead-
ings, time is now extended to and including
April 16, 1979. (S.E.).
4/3/79—Plaintiff Indiana Coal Assoc. et al files plead-
ings:
1) Notice of deposition, c/s.
ahh
Date Proceedings
2) Brief in support of motion for prelimi-
nary injunction and in reply to defend-
ant’s reply brief in support of motion to
dismiss, ¢/s.
4/12/79—Defendants file Motion for enlargement of time;
c/s.
4/17/79—Deposition of R. NEIL SAMPSON filed.
4/13/79—Court grants the Governments motion for ex-
tension of time to respond to the plaintiff’s
pleadings, time is now extended to and in-
cluding May 1, 1979. (S.E.)
4/17/79—Defendants file pleadings:
1) Memorandum in opposition to plaintiffs’
motion for preliminary relief and in sup-
port of defendants’ motion to dismiss
filed, c/s.
2) Response to request for admissions, c/s.
4/18/79—Affidavits of Dan Lynn Rumbly and Randy E.
Staley filed.
5/4/79—State’s Post-Trial Brief filed; ¢/s.
5/4/79—Defendants’ Post-Trial Brief filed; ¢/s.
5/4/79—Defendants file Motion for leave to offer addi-
tional exhibits and evidence; ¢/s.
5/4/79—Post-Hearing Brief in support of plaintiffs’ Mo-
tion for Preliminary Injunction; c/s.
8/21/79—Supplement to Motion to Dismiss filed by Fed-
eral Defendants.
2/27/80—Joint petition for expedited trial and decision
and stipulation as to procedure filed by the
Parties. Court files order on joint petition for
expedited trial and decision ard stipulation as to
procedure. (S.E.) Court now sets argument on
this matter for 10:00 A.M. April 24, 1980.
Date Proceedings
3/14/80—Plaintiffs’ trial brief on the merits filed, c/s.
4/3/80—Defendants file trial brief on the merits, c/s.
4/9/80—Plaintiffs file joint motion for enlargement of
time, ¢/s.
4/11/80—Court now Grants the plaintiffs’ motion for ex-
tension of time to file their reply briefs to and
including April 21, 1980.
4/18/80—Plaintiff files reply trial brief on the merits,
c/s.
6/6/80—Plaintiffs file motion to withdraw an issue, ¢/s.
6/10/80—Court now grants the plaintiff’s motion to with-
draw an issue.
6/10/80—Court files Order and Judgment finding for the
plaintiffs and against the defendants. (S.E.)
Court files memorandum of decision. Case
Closed. Entered June 11, 1980. O.B. Vol. 26—
P. 304.
6/16/80—Federal defendants file notice of appeal to the
Supreme Court of the United States from the
final order and judgment entered in this action
on June 10, 1980. Application for a stay of or-
der filed, c/s. Copy of notice went to the counsel
of record and court reporter. Copy of the no-
tice of appeal, docket entries, application for a
stay of order and copy of the judgment sent
to the Supreme Court.
6/18/80—Plaintiff files motion for time to respond to
defendants’ motion to stay, ¢/s.
6/18/80—Court now Grants the plaintiffs’ motion for ex-
tension of time to respond to the defendants’
motion to stay.
6/23/80—Plaintiff files memorandum in opposition to mo-
tion to stay, ¢/s.
joe | ee
Date Proceedings
6/24/80—Plaintiffs file submission of exhibit A, c/s.
6/25/80—Court now Denies application of federal de-
fendants for a stay of the June 10, 1980 order
of this court.
7/2/80—Official reporter’s transcript of argument on
merits filed.
7/7/80—Certified copy of order from Supreme Court
filed. Judgment of district court stayed pending
the filing and disposition of appeal by Supreme
Court.
10/10/80—Certified copy of order from Supreme Court
filed, and probable jurisdiction is noted.
ig
PLEADINGS
State of Indiana, et al. v. Cecil D. Andrus, et al.
No. IP 78-500-C
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiffs, State of Indiana; Otis R. Bowen, M.D.,
Governor of the State of Indiana; Joseph D. Cloud,
Director of the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources; and the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, for their claim for relief against the Defen-
dants, allege and say:
Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction is in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1331 since this is a civil action which arises under the
Constitution and laws of the United States.
2. Jurisdiction is also in this Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1337 since this is a civil action arising under an
Act of Congress purporting to regulate commerce.
3. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of the rights of the
parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202 and Rule
57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that 30 U.S.C.
§1201 et seq., the Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act gpf 1977, Public Law 95-87 (hereafter Act) is
unconstitutional.
5. “Plaistiffs also seek to have this Court permanently
enjoin the enforcement and implementation of 30 U.S.C.
§1201 et seg. and all regulations proposed and
promulgated thereunder.
aa Ye
Parties
6. Plaintiff State of Indiana (hereafter State), is a
sovereign state of the United States, admitted to the
Union as the nineteenth state in 1816.
7. Plaintiff Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Governor of the
State of Indiana is the chief executive officer of the
State and is charged with the duty of appointing the
Director of the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources as well as the members of the Natural
Resources Commission.
8. Plaintiff Joseph D. Cloud, Director of the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, pursuant to I.C. 13-4-
6-4, has been granted the duty and power by the Indiana
General Assembly to administer; supervise and enforce
the Indiana Strip Mining Reclamation act.
9. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources is
charged by law with the power to investigate, to compile
and disseminate information, and to make recommen-
dations concerning the natural resources of the State
and their conservation, including the drainage and
reclamation of lands.
10. Defendant Cecil D. Andrus is the Secretary of
the Department of Interior (hereafter Secretary), and
Defendant Walter Heine is the Director of the Office
of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (here-
after Director), and they are responsible for adminis-
tering the Act.
11. The Defendant Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (hereafter Office) is a
division of the Defendant Department of the Interior,
and it is through the Office that the Secretary ad-
ministers all aspects of the Act.
ji
12. The United States of America, through the
Department of Interior and its Secretary and the Office
and its Director, has attempted to control all aspects of
the reclamation of surface mined areas within the states,
and has attempted to pre-empt any and all valid state
laws dealing with such reclamation.
Claim for Relief
13. Indiana is in the top six (6) states in the total
production of coal by surface mining techniques, and is
in the top nine (9) states in the total production of coal
by all mining techniques.
14. The first state to enact legislation dealing with
the reclamation of surface mined areas was West
Virginia in 1939. Indiana enacted its first statute in
1941, thirty-six (36) years prior to the first Federal Act.
15. Prior to the passage of the Act in 1977, thirty-
eight (38) states had passed legislation dealing with the
reclamation of mined area within their respective states,
taking into consideration the particular variables within
those states to arrive at the standards to be utilized
therein. Twenty-six (26) of those states have coal mining
operations within their borders, and are, therefore,
affected by the Act.
16. In 1974, Indiana joined thirteen (13) states which
supply approximately ninety percent (90%) of the
nation’s coal production, and signed the Interstate Min-
ing Compact (hereafter Compact), I.C. 14-4-2.2-1, with
purposes to:
1. Advance the protection and restoration of
land, water and other resources affected by mining.
2. Assist in the reduction or elimination or
counteracting of pollution or deterioration of land,
water and air attributable to mining.
atic $Gnn
38. Encourage, with due recognition of relevant
regional, physical, and other differences, programs
in each of the party States which will achieve com-
parable results in protecting, conserving, and im-
proving the usefulness of natural resources, to the
end that the most desirable conduct of mining and
related operations may be universally facilitated.
4. Assist the party States in their efforts to
facilitate the use of land and other resources
affected by the mining, so that such use may be
consistent with sound land use, public health, and
public safety, and to this end to study and recom-
mend, wherever desirable, techniques for the im-
provement, restoration or protection of such land
and other resources.
5. Assist in achieving and maintaining an ef-
ficient and productive mining industry and in in-
creasing economic and other benefits attributable to
mining.
17. Coal is the most abundant source of energy in the
United States, and is used to produce ninety-seven per-
cent (97%) of all electricity generated in Indiana.
18. The Plaintiffs regulate surface mining activities
within Indiana pursuant to I.C. 13-4-6-1 et seq., I.C. 14-4-
2-1 et seq., I.C. 14-4-2.1-1 et seg., and I.C. 14-4-2.2-1 et
seq., which provide, inter alia, for the reclamation and
restoration of lands adversely affected by surface min-
ing activities.
19. The State has also enacted comprehensive legisla-
tion governing land use planning and real property
within Indiana.
20. Included in the purposes of the Act, as found at
30 U.S.C. §1202, are:
—
(c) assure that surface mining operations are |
not conducted where reclamation as required by
this chapter is not feasible;
(f) assure that the coal supply essential to the
Nation’s energy requirements, and to its economic
and social well-being is provided and strike a
balance between protection of the environment and
agricultural productivity and the Nation’s need for
coal as an essential source of energy.
(k) encourage the full utilization of coal
resources through the development and application
of underground extraction technologies;
(m) wherever necessary, exercise the full reach
of Federal constitutional powers to insure the
protection of the public interest through effective
control of surface coal mining operations.
21. Pursuant to the Act, the Defendants have issued
final and proposed regulations which may be found at
30 C.F.R., Part 700 et seq.
22. Subchapter IV of the Act establishes a fee which
is, in effect, a tax or penalty, and also establishes
procedures for reclaiming lands which have been
“adversely affected” by past surface coal mining. 30
U.S.C. §1231 et seq.
23. The “Fee Collection Report” issued by the United
States Department of the Interior shows that Indiana
coal mining operators paid $1,970,402 in fees for the
quarter ending December 31, 1977, and a total of
$30,925,490. was paid by operators in the twenty-six (26)
reporting states.
=|
24. The fees paid in the quarter ending December
31, 1977, were enormous, and production of coal in that
quarter was greatly reduced due to the nation-wide coal
strike.
25. Preliminary figures for 1977 indicate that 27.9
million tons of coal were mined in Indiana with ap-
proximately 525,000 tons being mined by underground
techniques. If the same amount is mined in 1978, In-
diana coal mining operators will pay fees, pursuant to
30 U.S.C. §1232, of $9,660,000. which will, by necessity,
be passed on to the consumers in Indiana and other
states, including the State of Indiana as a consumer, in
the form of increased costs for coal, electricity, and
other products using coal in the manufacturing process.
26. Subchapter V of the Act establishes a regulatory
scheme for surface coal mining, reclamation, and use of
reclaimed lands. 30 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.
27. Pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §1253, each state in which
there is or may be conducted surface coal mining
operations may only assume exclusive jurisdiction over
the regulation of surface coal mining by filing a state
program with the Secretary which demonstrates the
state has the capability of carrying out the provisions of
the Act through seven specific and extensive re-
quirements.
28. The State is required to submit its plan to the
Secretary by the end of the eighteen-month period
beginning August 30, 1977; the Secretary then has six
months to approve or disapprove the plan; and if disap-
proved, the State has sixty (60) days in which to resub-
mit the plan which shall be approved or disapproved
within sixty (60) days.
—19—
29. In the event a state fails to submit an acceptable
program or fails to implement, enforce, or maintain its
approved program, the Secretary, pursuant to 30 U.S.C.
§1254, shall prepare, promulgate and implement a
Federal program for that state.
30. Since May 4, 1978, the effective date of the Act,
operators of coal mining operations within Indiana and
elsewhere have been subjected to 30 U.S.C. §1252 which
mandates compliance with the Federal act.
31. Pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §1265, permits issued un-
der the Act to conduct surface coal mining operations
require that the operations comply with extensive “per-
formance standards”, thereby attempting to pre-empt
matters properly within the jurisdiction and control of
the State.
32. The Plaintiffs allege, upon information and
belief, that compliance with the Act has resulted in sub-
stantial initial capital expenditures by the operators
within Indiana exceeding $100,000,000. and will result
in substantial additional capital expenditures and
operating expenses in the future which will, by necessi-
ty, be passed on to the consumers in Indiana and other
states, including the State of Indiana as a consumer, in
the farm of increased costs for coal, electricity, and
other products using coal in the manufacturing process.
33. If the operators fail to comply with the provisions
of the Act they will be subject to penalties of up to $5,-
000. per day per violation plus the possibility of closure
of their mines and the denial of new or renewal mining
permits, all to their detriment and to the irreparable in-
jury of such operators and the State and to the con-
suming public if such closures would lead to an in-
terruption of the supply of coal.
— 2).
34. The Defendants have retained complete and
overall enforcement powers under the Act, regardless of
the sufficiency of any present or future State laws, even
though Congress found in 30 U.S.C. §1201 that because
of the diversity of the factors involved in surface mining
the primary responsibility of governing that activity
should rest with the states.
35. Pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §1237, the Secretary, his
agents, employees, or contractors, have the right “as an
exercise of the police power” to enter upon any property
adversely affected by past coal mining practices and any
other property in order to have access to such property
to do all things necessary or expedient to restore,
reclaim, abate, control or prevent the adverse effects.
36. Pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §1237, the Secretary, his
agents, employees, or contractors, have the right “as an
exercise of the police power” to enter upon any property
for the purpose of conducting studies or exploratory
work to determine the existence of adverse effects of
past coal mining practices and to determine the
feasibility of restoration, reclamation, abatement, con-
trol or prevention of such adverse effects.
37. The Act is an unconstitutional invasion of the
powers reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States, and does not in-
volve any o1 the powers delegated to the United States.
38. The regulations promulgated and adopted under
the Act as well as the proposed regulations constitute a
drastic intrusion of the federal government into the af-
fairs of the citizens of Indiana and the State.
39. The Act is unconstitutional in that it purports to
regulate, under the guise of the commerce clause, Arti-
cle 1, §8, cl. 3 of the Constituion, activities purely local
in nature within the State of Indiana.
eet
40. The process of surface coal mining, reclamation,
and/or the subsequent use of reclaimed lands have no
substantial, direct, or indirect effects on interstate com-
merce.
41. The Act, and the regulations proposed and
promulgated thereunder, interfere with the traditional
attributes of sovereignty of the State, including, but not
limited to land use control and planning, regulation of
the rights to and in real property, ¢ otection of public
health and safety, and it interferes with the structuring
of the governmental operations of the State.
42. The sovereign powers of the State of Indiana and
of the people, as reserved to them by the Tenth Amend-
ment to the Constitution of the United States, are to be
exercised by the Legislature of the State for the benefit
of the citizens of the State in light of various local con-
ditions and considerations, and are not to be exercised
under threat, coercion, intimidation or undue influence
by the United States.
43. The Act is unconstitutional in that it purports to
allow access to private property of Indiana citizens
without a warrant under “the police power,” a power
which does not exist in the Defendants or the Federal
government.
44. The Act is not capable of enforcement since it is
vague, overbroad and lacks specificity in its terms,
thereby not allowing those purportedly regulated by it
to know what is required of them by the law.
45. The Act pre-empts valid laws enacted by the
State of Indiana which have been functioning for
decades in the regulation of the reclamation of mined
areas. Those laws, which have been highly successful in
Indiana and which have been models for legislation by
monies
other states, provide for higher land use reclamation
than allowed by the Act, thereby necessitating the
procedural requirement of applying for a variance and
getting that application approved in order to effect the
higher use that is required as a matter of course under
Indiana law.
46. Indiana’s program for reclamation is enforced
and implemented by a staff of ten (10) state employees,
but in order to comply with the provisions of this Act
that staff will need to be increased by an additional
nineteen (19) persons, the result of which is a needless,
additional financial burden to the citizens of Indiana,
while the effectiveness of the program will be reduced
below that achieved by the State regulatory scheme.
WHEREFORE, for all the above and foregoing, the
Plaintiffs respectfully pray this Court assume jurisdic-
tion of this cause; declare 30 U.S.C. §1201 et seg., Public
Law 95-87, and all regulations proposed and promul-
gated thereunder, unconstitutional, void, and of no
effect; enjoin the enforcement of 30 U.S.C. §1201 et
seq., Public Law 95-87, and all regulations proposed and
promulgated thereunder; grant judgment to the Plain-
tiffs, costs versus the Defendants; and for all other just
and proper relief.
STATE OF INDIANA
/s/ OTIs R. Bowen, M.D.
Governor of the State of Indiana
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
/s/ JOSEPH D. CLoup
Director, Indiana Department
of Natural Resources
—23—
/s/ THEODORE L. SENDAK
Attorney General of Indiana
/s/ DONALD P. BOGARD
Chief Counsel
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
(Filed: August 16, 1978]
is
Indiana Coal Association, et al. v. United States, et al.
No. IP 78-501-C
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs for their claim for relief against defendants
state:
1. The matter in controversy is a civil action and
arises under the United States Constitution and laws of
the United States and this Court has jurisdiction pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202,
and 5 U.S.C. § 701.
2. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977, Public Law 95-87, 30 U.S.C. § 1201, et seg.
[hereinafter “the Act”] was enacted August 3, 1977.
Defendants, Cecil D. Andrus and Walter Heine, in their
sospective capacities as Secretary of the Department of
the Interior and as Director of the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement are charged with
responsibility for administering the Act, are presently
intending to enforce the Act and have issued final and
proposed regulations thereunder [30 C.F.R., Part 700 et
seq. |.
3. Plaintiffs, AMAX Inc. through its division AMAX
Coal Company, Peabody Coal Company and _ the
members of the Indiana Coal Association [hereinafter
“Coal Company Plaintiffs”) are owners and operators of
surface coal mines in the State of Indiana and in other
states and some of them have present plans for enlarg-
ing such surface mining operations and for opening of
new mining operations which are subject to the re-
quirements of the Act; and plaintiff John A. Conlon is a
resident of the State of Indiana. Defendant Meadowlark
Farms, Inc. owns interests in realty, some including fee
simple absolute and some including only the coal in-
—25—
terests; and Meadowlark leases some of such realty in-
terests including coal to AMAX Inc. After removal of
the coal and reclamation, Meadowlark performs farm-
ing operations on the reclaimed land.
4. Title IV of the Act establishes a tax or penalty and
procedures for reclaiming lands which have been
adversely affected by past surface coal mining.
5. Title V of the Act establishes a regulatory scheme
for surface coal mining, reclamation, and use of reclaim-
ed lands.
6. Coal Company Plaintiffs are subject to Act
§ 502(c) which became effective May 4, 1978, which re-
quires that such plaintiffs comply with provisions of:
Act § 515(b)\(2) [requiring restoration of land affected by
surface coal mining operations to a “condition capable of
supporting [prior] uses . . . or higher or better uses”);
Act § 515(bX3) [requiring land affected by surface coal
mining operations to be reclaimed to establish the “ap-
proximate original contour of the land”); Act § 515(bX5)
[requiring removal of top soil in surface coal mine
operations in separate layers and to segregate the same];
Act § 515(b)(10) [requiring operators to minimize dis-
turbances to prevailing hydrologic balance]; Act § 515
(b)(18) [concerning treatment of mine waste piles];
Act §515(b\(15) [concerning use of explosives}; Act
§ 515(b)(19) [concerning establishment of permanent
vegetative cover on reclaimed land]; and Act § 515(d)
[concerning standards for steep slope surface coal min-
ing]. As more specifically hereafter alleged, defendants
also are wrongfully and without authority attempting to
presently enforce Act § 515(b\7).
7. Coal Company Plaintiffs have not, prior to May 4,
1978, been required to conduct operations of surface coal
—26—
mining in accordance with the foregoing provisions of
the Act; Coal Company Plaintiffs’ compliance with such
provisions has resulted in substantial initial capital ex-
penditures in excess of $100 million and will result in
substantial additional capital expenditures and substan-
tial increases in operating expenses.
8. If Coal Company Plaintiffs fail to comply with the
aforementioned sections of the Act on and after May 4,
1978, such plaintiffs will be subject to penalties of up to
$5,000 per day per violation and enforcement provisions
of the Act which include closure of the mines of such
plaintiffs, denials of new mining permits and denials of
renewal mining permits, all to the detriment and the
irreparable injury of such plaintiffs.
9. After the approval of a state program under Act
§ 503 or a federal program under Act § 504, Coal Com-
pany Plaintiffs will be required to comply with the en-
tirety of Title V of the Act.
10. Coal Company Plaintiffs have paid and must con-
tinue to pay a tax or penalty pursuant to Act § 402.
11. Regardless of the sufficiency of any present or
future laws or program of the State of Indiana which
are mandated by the Act, the United States has retained
complete and overall enforcement powers under the Act.
12. The entirety of Title V of the Act and portions of
Title IV of the Act are contrary to the Constitution of
the United States as more fully set forth hereafter.
13. Plaintiffs’ remedies at law are inadequate and
plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm unless the Court
grants the relief as hereinafter requested.
14. Title V of the Act is contrary to the Constitution
of the United States in that the United States pur-
-_ =
portedly is exercising power to regulate under the com-
merce clause of the Constitution (Art. I, § 8, cl. 3).
15. The process of surface coal mining, reclamation
and/or the subsequent use of the reclaimed land are
purely local activities confined within the State of In-
diana and other states where such activities take place.
16. The process of surface coal mining, reclamation,
and/or the subsequent use of the reclaimed land have no
substantial, direct or indirect effect on interstate com-
merce.
17. There is no rational basis for any conclusions or
findings of Congress (§ 101 of the Act) that surface coal
mining operations, surface coal mining reclamation, or
subsequent land use have any effect or burden on in-
terstate commerce.
18. If there is a rational basis for a finding that some
aspect of surface coal mining, or reclamation, or subse-
quent land use result in any effect or burden on in-
terstate commerce, provisions of Title V are not
reasonably adapted to, limited to, or related to removing
or regulating any effect or burden on interstate com-
merce.
19. The State of Indiana is presently, and was prior
to the Act, regulating surface mining activities under IC
13-4-6-1, et seg. and IC 14-4-2-1, et seq. and under IC 14-
4-2.1-1, et seg. the State of Indiana is presently, and had
prior to the Act, made provision for the restoration and
reclamation of land located in the State of Indiana
which has been adversely affected by past surface min-
ing practices, including surface coal mining practices.
20. Titles IV and V of the Act are contrary to the
Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States in that the United States is interfering with the
—23—
structuring of the governmental operation of the states,
including the State of Indiana, and with the functions
essential to the states, including the State of Indiana and
its citizens under the Constitution of the United States
as alleged in paragraphs 21-28 hereafter, and in par-
ticular:
a. Pursuant to Act § 502(b) the State of Indiana
is required to issue mining permits in compliance
with Title V of the Act.
b. Pursuant to Act §§ 507, 508, 510, 515 and
522(a), (c) and (d) reclamation to facilitate subse-
quent land use and land use planning is required of
the State of Indiana pursuant to federally created
standards which are unrelated to any power of the
United States enumerated under the Constitution of
the United States, and such are an exercise of a
power reserved to the states, including the State of
Indiana, or the people.
c. Pursuant to Act § 522(e)(3), (4) and (5), sur-
face coal mining is prohibited, unless waivers or ap-
provals are obtained pursuant thereto, and public
road relocation is required under Act § 522(e)4).
Such attempts at regulation are not related to, and
are not authorized by, any enumerated power of the
Constitution of the United States, but are related
solely to powers reserved to the states, including the
State of Indiana, and to the people.
d. Pursuant to Act § 510(b\X6), the Act allows a
federal authority to adjudicate private property
rights, in that a surface coal mining permit will be
denied if a dispute exists as to whether the operator
has rights to surface mine. Such is not authorized
by any enumerated power of the Constitution of
the United States, but is related solely to powers
reserved to the states, including the State of In-
diana, and to the people.
e. Pursuant to Act §515, standards and
procedures for regulation of reclamation and subse-
—29—
quent land use are established. Such are not
authorized by any enumerated power of the Con-
stitution of the United States, but are related solely
to powers reserved to the states, including the State
of Indiana, and to the people.
21. Act § 503 allows the State of Indiana to ad-
minister and enforce parts of Title IV and all of Title V.
Act § 405(c) allows funds to be distributed to the State
of Indiana, only on the condition that the State of In-
diana exercises its sovereign powers by enacting laws
consistent with the Act and the regulations promulgated
thereunder.
22. Titles IV and V in whole or in part are un-
constitutional as being contrary to the delegated powers
of the United States under the Constitution of the
United States and contrary to the Tenth Amendment
thereof; although many of the provisions, which are un-
constitutional when exercised by the United States, may
be validly exercised by the various states, including the
State of Indiana, pursuant to their sovereign and retain-
ed powers.
23. The United States, intentionally with the purpose
of coercing, intimidating and otherwise unlawfully caus-
ing the states to exercise their sovereign powers, enacted
the Act and so commingled the provisions which might
be lawful for the United States to enact, with provisions
which are unlawful, that the State of Indiana and its
citizens cannot determine whether it is in the best in-
terests of the citizens and of the State to exercise its
sovereign powers, enact legislation, and administer Title
IV and Title V. As a result of regulations promulgated
by the defendants under the Act, the State of Indiana
has been coerced and unlawfully forced in violation of
its sovereign power reserved under the Constitution to
~~
enact legislation to enforce and to administer parts of
Title V of the Act.
24. The sovereign powers of the State of Indiana and
of the people, as retained by the Tenth Amendment of
the Constitution of the United States, are to be exercised
by the Legislature of the State of Indiana for the benefit
of the citizens of the State in light of the various local
conditions and other local considerations; such sovereign
powers are not to be exercised under threat, coercion,
intimidation or undue influence by the United States.
25. Act §503 and Act § 405 unlawfully interfere
with the legislative process of the State of Indiana and
the exercise of the sovereign rights of the State of In-
diana, contrary to the Constitution of the United States
and the Tenth Amendment.
26. Act § 503 constitutes an attempted purchase of
the rights and sovereign powers of the states and the
rights of the people by the United States contrary to the
Constitution of the United States and the Tenth Amend-
ment, and an attempt to amend and limit the Constitu-
tion of the United States so as to enlarge and enhance
the delegated powers of the United States contrary to
the Constitution of the United States and the Tenth
Amendment, all to the irreparable detriment and
expense of the State of Indiana and the people.
27. Title IV and Title V of the Act are contrary to
the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States which reserved all, but specific delegated powers,
to the states or the people, and contrary to the federal
System required under the Constitution of the United
States in that the United States in coercing, threatening,
intimidating, and creating undue influence upon the
states and the citizens thereof, including the State of In-
oe
diana and its citizens and the governmental bodies
thereof, including the Governor, the House of Represen-
tatives and the Senate of the State of Indiana.
28. The State of Indiana and its citizens cannot
reasonably decide whether to enact the necessary
legislation and to submit a state program under Act
§ 503, or whether to remain silent and allow the United
States to administer a federal program under Act § 504,
unless this Court declares which, if any, of the
provisions of Titles IV and V can be validly exercised by
the United States without legislation of the State of In-
diana, and the lawfulness of the provisions which are
coercive, intimidating and undermining to the
sovereignty of the State of Indiana and its citizens.
26. Plaintiffs are being deprived of their property
and rights without due process of law or without just
compensation contrary to the Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States and in particular:
a. Title V of the Act requires that Coal Com-
pany Plaintiffs reclaim land subsequent to surface
coal mining activities to the extent of establishing
such land’s prior contour [§ 515(b\3)], without the
consent of such plaintiffs as to their own property
interests, and such plaintiffs will be denied a per-
mit pursuant to the Act, and their property rights
+ gh rendered valueless unless they comply with
the Act.
b. Title V of the Act requires that Coal Com-
pany Plaintiffs reclaim land subsequent to surface
coal mining operations so that such land can be
capable of supporting its prior use or a higher and
better use [§ 515(b)\(2)], all without the consent of
such plaintiffs as to their own property interests,
and such plaintiffs will be denied permits to mine
land and their property rights will be rendered
valueless unless they comply with the Act.
= Ss
ce. Title V of the Act requires that Coal Com-
pany Plaintiffs reclaim land so that it is capable of
achieving prior productivity [§ 515(bX7)], without
the consent of such plaintiffs as to their own proper-
ty interests, and such plaintiffs will be denied a
permit and their property rights will be rendered
valueless unless they comply with the Act.
d. Each of the foregoing require inordinate and
confiscatory expenditures for equipment and in-
creases in operating costs for Coal Company Plain-
tiffs to achieve such states of reclamation.
e. Title V of the Act allows permit applications
to be denied based on proposed post mining uses
[§§ 507, 508 and 510] so that plaintiffs’ interests in
their land will be rendered valueless.
f. Title V of the Act prohibits surface coal min-
ing unless the above can be satisfied, and in other
instances surface mining is prohibited as pursuant
to Act § 522 and Act § 515(b\(12) so that plaintiffs’
property interests will be rendered valueless.
g. The remaining provisions of Act §§ 507, 508,
509, 510, 515 and 516, as well as the foregoing
provisions as set forth in a. through g., all re-
quire that Coal Company Plaintiffs change their
procedures and expend inordinate and confiscatory
amounts for capital and increased operating costs
and expenses or be denied permits, in which event
the property interests of such plaintiffs will be
rendered valueless.
h. Each of the requirements of the Act as set
forth above in subparagraphs a. through h. have no
rational basis in relation to the ends, if any, which
are constitutionally permissible.
i. There is no rational basis for the difference
between the treatment of surface coal mining and
other methods of mining coal under Act
§ 515(bX 12), § 515(bX 15K C\iii), § 402, and Title V.
—$3--
j. Property of plaintiffs has been confiscated
and rendered valueless as a result of the Act
without payment or provision for payment of just
compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment
to the Constitution.
k. Coal Company Plaintiffs in the course of
developing mines to extract coal by the surface
mining method, sometimes acquire the coal rights
from the owner of the fee simple title by lease with
the right to disturb the surface; and after the coal is
removed, the surface is returned to the fee owner.
The fee owner is paid for the coal by a royalty
method of payment. By requiring the reclamation
in the manner set forth in the Act, the cost of
reclamation and the resulting increase in the value
of the surface will inure to the benefit of the fee
owner which benefit was not considered in the es-
tablishment of the royalty payment to the fee
owner. The contracts and leases of the Coal Com-
pany Plaintiffs are thereby being impaired and the
Coal Company Plaintiffs are being deprived of their
property.
30. Act § 516 is unconstitutional and is contrary to
the separation of powers and provisions of the United
States Constitution and delegates power of Congress to
administrative agencies without sufficient standards.
31. Act § 502(e) and § 517 are contrary to the Fourth
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in
that the same allow and compel unlawful searches or
seizures of plaintiffs’ property.
32. Act §518 of the Act is contrary to the Fifth
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in
that due process is not accorded to plaintiffs herein if a
violation occurs, since a hearing before an impartial
tribunal and the opportunity to present evidence to such
impartial tribunal are denied except on the prepayment
of proposed penalties, all of which combine to create a
naliiijun
chilling effect upon the rights of plaintiff pursuant to
the Fifth Amendment.
33. The penalties provided pursuant to Act § 518 are
criminal penalties and plaintiffs are being wrongfully
denied the right to a jury trial pursuant to the Sixth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
34. The “reclamation fee” assessed against Coal Com-
pany Plaintiffs pursuant to § 402 of the Act is dis-
criminatory as against surface coal mining, contrary to
the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States; and further such fee is in fact a direct tax on
property and is not apportioned among the states based
on population, contrary to the Constitution of the United
States. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Sec-
tion 9, Clause 4.
35. Act §521(aX1) which permits private citizens
access to the private property of the Coal Company
Plaintiffs constitutes an invasion of the constitutional
right to privacy of such plaintiffs and is unconstitutional
interference with the states’ rights to define the laws of
trespass as protected under the Tenth Amendment to
the Constitution.
36. Act § 502(c) specifies those provisions of the Act
which are to be in effect until a federal or state program
is instituted.
37. Act § 502(c) does not specify that Act § 515(bX7)
is to be enforced during an interim period.
38. The defendants are attempting to enforce Act
§ 515(bX(7) contrary to their authority and the express
provisions of the Act.
39. Coal Company Plaintiffs will have to comply with
such provision and expend large amounts for capital and
=_
incur substantial increased operating costs to comply
with such section.
40. The Secretary of the Interior has promulgated
regulations pursuant to Act §501(b) without an en-
vironmental impact statement as required pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
specifically § 102(C) [42 U.S.C. 4832], and without
otherwise complying with said act. The promulgation of
regulations pursuant to Act § 501(b) constitutes a “major
federal action” within the meaning of § 102(2\Xc) of the
National Environmental Policy Act.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the Court grant (a)
declaratory relief that Title V in whole or in part and
Title IV as to Act § 402 are contrary to the Constitution
of the United States as alleged, that the Secretary of the
Interior has no authority to enforce such provisions, or
that Act § 515(b)(7) is not a part of the interim program,
that rules promulgated pursuant to Act § 515(b\7) are
major federal actions pursuant to NEPA, and that the
Secretary of the Interior must comply with NEPA; (b)
injunctive relief permanently enjoining defendants from
enforcing any and all portions of the Act found to be un-
lawful, and a preliminary injunction enjoining defen-
dants from enforcing the provisions of the Act as alleg-
ed; and (c) such other relief as may be proper.
IcE MILLER DONADIO & RYAN
/s/ Harry T. ICE
/s/ G. DANIEL KELLEY, JR.
/s/ JAMES D. KEMPER
/s/ BYRON L. MYERS
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
[Filed: August 16, 1978]
<n
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR :
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Come now the plaintiffs in the above-consolidated ac-
tions, by counsel, [hereafter plaintiffs in No. IP 78-500-C
are referred to as “State of Indiana”, and plaintiffs in
No. IP 78-501-C as “coal companies”], and pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 respectfully move the Court for a
preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants, and
any and all persons functioning as officers, agents, ser-
vants, employees and attorneys of the defendants, and
those persons in active concert or participation with
them, from enforcing, in any way whatsoever, Title V of
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977, Public Law 95-87 [hereinafter “the Act”], 30
U.S.C. §§1251 through 1272, pending a full trial of these
actions on the mertis.
In support of said motion plaintiffs show to the Court
as follows:
1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations
made in their respective complaints in support of this
motion as well as all exhibits being submitted herewith.
2. The surface coal minable reserves in the State of
Indiana are located on the eastern edge of what is com-
monly termed the Illinois Coal Basin which area of
surface minable reserves is located generally in south-
western Indiana [Exhibits 5, 1 and 2]. To the west of
these surface minable reserves are located the un-
derground minable reserves [Exhibits 5 and 3]. At the
present time approximately 99.75% of the coal being
produced within the State of Indiana is being produced
by the surface mining method, and further approxi-
mately 82% of this coal being produced on a yearly
basis is sold within the State of Indiana, which in excess
of 80% is sold to electric utilities within the State of In-
diana [Exhibit 6].
a
3. Most of the areas in which the surface mining is
presently taking place within the State of Indiana and
in which it is expected to take place in the future con-
tain large amounts of “prime farmland” as defined un-
der the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act,
hereafter referred to as the Act, [Exhibits 2, 7 and 8].
The percentage of the land mined by Peabody in 1978
and which will be mined by AMAX through 1983 which
is prime farmland is set forth on Exhibits 7 and 8.
4. The primary reclamation standards under the Act,
including the permitting procedure, are attempts by the
Federal Government to interfere with a traditional area
of sovereignty of the State of Indiana, that of land use
planning and control as follows:
a. The Federal Government will condition the ap-
proval of surface mining permits upon approval of
subsequent land use [§507(g), §508(a)(2), (3), (4),
(8), (10), §515, see Br ef in Opposition to Motion to
Dismiss, pp. 44-51], and the Federal Government
will be required to approve any change in the
postmining use from the premining use.
b. Specific reclamation provisions of the Act are
related solely to asserted Federal land use policies,
as the requirement of reclaiming surface mined
land to a condition capable of supporting prior or
higher or better mining uses [§515(b)(2)], return-
ing the land to its original contour, [§515(b)(3)],
removal and replacement of topsoil ($515(b\3)] (sic),
separate removal, segregation and replacement of
the A Horizon, B Horizon, and C Horizon with
respect to the prime farmland [§515(bX7)], and the
conditioning of any permit to mine upon prime
farmland upon a showing of the technological
capabilities to restore such land to equal or higher
levels of productivity, and requiring of the appli-
cant that the proposed postmining use be farming
and that such use actually takes place [§510(d) and
33
see pp. 55 of Brief in Opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss].
c. Designation of areas within the State of Indiana
that would be unsuitable for surface mining, and
the prohibition of mining operations in certain
areas are solely related to land use control in §522.
5. Prime farmland extensively covers surface
minable reserves within Indiana [Exhibit 2], and the re-
quirements of the Act that the applicant demonstrate
that prime farmland can be returned to 100% equal
levels of productivity before an applicant is allowed to
mine such land are impossible to comply with based on
presently known technology and experience.
6. The excessive mining costs will result in restrict-
ing the development and expansion of the surface min-
ing industry within the State of Indiana as well as ul-
timately result in closures due to the excessive mining
costs [Exhibits 9 and 10].
7. The combined effect of the impossibility of restor-
ing prime farmlands to original levels of productivity
after surface mining and the excessive costs will dis-
place all or part of the surface mining industry within
Indiana and prevent future development of the mining
and associated industries [Exhibit 11] and cause mining
companies to seek to mine by the underground method,
all contrary to proper land use control and planning.
8. The potential underground minable_ reserves
within the State of Indiana are of such quality and
located in such a fashion within the Illinois Coal Basin
that the coal mining industry of Indiana could be shifted
into mining by the underground method on under-
ground mining reserves within the State of Illinois or
within western Kentucky [Exhibits 12 and 6].
99
9. The prime farmland which is assertedly being dis-
placed within the State of Indiana due to surface min-
ing, is infinitesimal and unimportant under proper land
use planning considerations within the State of Indiana
as are presently being exercised by the State of Indiana
by reason of:
a. The six primary counties within the State of In-
diana where surface mined coal is extracted, those
being the counties of Clay, Greene, Pike, Sullivan,
Vermillion, and Warrick [Exhibit 13], contribute
less than 5% of the total production of agricultural
commodities as corn, wheat, soybeans [Exhibit 14].
b. The county government financial structure and
the delivery of governmental services in such
counties are highly dependent on the sustaining of
and development of the surface mine industry and
other related industries which locate in such coun-
ties due to surface minable coal reserves, and
which industry contributes a significant portion of
the personal and real property taxes paid in such
counties. For example, the industry paid in 1978
the following percentage of the total real and per-
sonal property taxes paid in the following coun-
ties: Clay 7.3%, Green 6.4%, Pike 18.05%, Sullivan
14.3%, Vermillion 5%, and Warrick 50.4%. [Ex-
hibits 15 to 19].
ec. The Federal Government through the Agriculture
Stabilization and Conservation Service in 1978
paid farmers within the State of Indiana not to
| alas such crops on 369,135.6 acres, [Exhibit
d. A higher and better postmining use of the prime
farmland under proper land use policies might be
for purposes other than farming and the Act
prohibits this.
10. The land use policies being implemented by the
Federal Government through the Act could seriously
disrupt and displace the delivery of governmental ser-
—1—~
vices by the foregoing counties contrary to the land use
planning and control decisions of these counties and the
State of Indiana, all contrary to the Tenth Amendment
of the Constitution of the United States. To the extent
there is any valid basis for an exercise of the commerce
clause power to control pollution aspects of the sur-
face mining industry means less intrusive upon the
sovereignty and retained powers of the State of Indiana
are available, [Exhibit 21].
11. Plaintiffs are threatened with irreparable harm
in the event that enforcement ot Title V of the Act is not
enjoined in that:
a. State of Indiana in order to retain exclusive
jurisdiction over its land and land use control and
planning is mandated to submit a state program
to the Federal Government no later than August
3, 1979. Indiana presently does not have the laws
necessary to have such a program submitted, and
the General Assembly is presently convened until
no later than April 30, 1979 but could adjourn
earlier, and will not reconvene until January,
1980. The General Assembly cannot determine
whether to enact such legislation to authorize the
State of Indiana to submit a program from the
standpoint of what is in the best interest of the
State of Indiana and its citizens unless and until
this Court declares and decides which provisions
of the Act, if any, can be constitutionally imposed
upon the surface coal mining industry and the
State of Indiana. The Act is specifically drawn so
as to be unlawfully coercive upon the States and
their legislatures with the intent that the States
will be compelled and unlawfully coerced into
enacting legislation which would cure the con-
stitutional infirmities of the Federal Act [Brief in
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, pp. 67-74].
|
The Department of Interior has not to date
promulgated regulations for a permanent
program so that the General Assembly cannot
make an informed and reasonable decision in the
interest of the State of Indiana and its citizens
whether to enact legislation at the present time
authorizing the State of Indiana to submit a per-
manent program.
The Secretary of the Department of Interior has
violated the express mandatory duty placed upon
him pursuant to §501(b) that:
“Not later than one year after the enactment of
this Act [August 3, 1977], the Secretary shall
promulgate and publish in the Federal
Register regulations covering a permanent
regulatory procedure for surface coal mining
and reclamation operations performance stan-
dards based on and conforming to the
provisions of Title V and_ establishing
procedures and requirements for preparation,
submission, and approval of State programs;
and the development and implementation of
Federal programs under the Title.”
The time for the promulgation of permanent rules
by the Secretary of the Department of Interior
expired on August 4, 1978.
Such failure on the part of the Secretary of the
Department of Interior is additionally coercive
upon the State of Indiana and the General
Assembly in that it becomes further impossible
for the State of Indiana and the General
Assembly to determine whether to enact legisla-
tion prior to August 3, 1979.
If the State of Indiana through the General
Assembly does not enact legislation in the present
General Assembly, it will be foreclosed from
retaining control of its sovereignty in land use
planning and control until after a Federal
program is promulgated and adopted for the
=
State of Indiana which promulgation and develop-
ment will begin by the Federal Government on
August 3, 1979.
If the State of Indiana through the General
Assembly acts under the present conditions of
coercion and duress, it must either enact suf-
ficient legislation without knowing the con-
stitutionality of the Federal Act, and State of In-
diana, its citizens, and coal companies will be
barred by waiver from asserting questions as to
the unconstitutionality of the Federal Act; or if
the State of Indiana through the General
Assembly does not act, it will be foreclosed for a
period of at least two to three years from retain-
ing jurisdiction and authority to regulate land use
control and planning in the State of Indiana
through the surface mining activities.
The State of Indiana through the Department of
Natural Resources is being required to divert
funds from its selected manner of delivering the
State governmental services, to the extent of Two
Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand Five Hundred
Seventy-Eight Dollars ($256,578.00) on a yearly
basis and the administrative officers of the
Department of Natural Resources are now re-
quired to divert approximately 20% of their nor-
mal time to matters arising under the Federal
Act which expenditure of time was not chosen for
them as a matter of State policy in the delivery of
the governmental services to its citizens, but
rather all due to the coercion and duress applied
against the State of Indiana by the Federal
Government [Exhibit 22].
The State of Indiana is also suffering irreparable
harm by the enforcement of the Act upon the
State’s coal producers since the State is a major
consumer of coal and coal-generated electricity
and steam. For the fiscal year 1976-1977, various
State institutions used 393,434.37 tons of coal at a
cost of $9,198,059.14 to the State. For the fiscal
_:
year 1977-1978 (year of the coal strike), the
various State institutions used 338,680.57 tons of
coal at a cost of $9,035,662.70 to the State. During
the fiscal year 1978 to approximately February
1979, the various State institutions have used
246,777.35 tons of coal at a cost of $7,497,599.24 to
the State. The average cost per ton to the State
was: 1976/1977—$23.38; 1977/1978—$26.68;
1978/ approximately February 1979—$30.38 [Ex-
hibits 23-27]. Besides its direct consumption of
coal, which is becoming more expensive because
of the requirements placed upon coal producers
by the Act, the State of Indiana is also an indirect
consumer of coal through its purchase of electrici-
ty, [Exhibit 28].
The State of Indiana is facing current and future
irreparable harm to its policy-making in land use
control and planning, and in the delivery of its
governmental services, all traditional areas of
state sovereignty. Unless the enforcement of the
Act is enjoined pending a full resolution of the
merits, the State of Indiana is, and will continue
to be, placed in a position where the State will be
forced, by the terms of the Act, to either accept
the Federal Goverment’s land use policy as the
State’s policy for Indiana land, or lose entirely its
jurisdiction over land use planning and control of
Indiana land on which surface mining is to be
done to the Federal Government.
Plaintiff coal companies have incurred and are
continuing to incur substantial costs in complying
with the unlawful provisions of the Act. In 1978,
AMAX Coal Company expended in excess of
Twenty-Seven Million Dollars ($27,000,000.00) in
purchasing capital equipment to comply with the
Act [Exhibit 29] as well as an additional Eight
Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($8,100,-
000.00) increased cost of operation for the four In-
diana mines alone [Exhibit 9]. Unless this Court
enjoins enforcement of the Act as requested,
ction
AMAX will have to spend an additional Five
Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) for capital equip-
ment in 1979 [Exhibit 30], and will further have
to expend weil in excess of Eight Million Dollars
($8,000,000.00) increased operating costs during
1979 [Exhibit 9]. Peabody has and will incur sub-
stantially similar capital expenditures or ad-
ditional cost and expenses. If the Act is ultimately
declared unconstitutional as requested, none of
the cost and expenses incurred above are
recoverable from the government and serious and
prejudicial injury and harm will result to these
plaintiffs.
Plaintiff AMAX has already closed one mine in
southern Indiana causing the loss of employment
opportunities and loss of revenue to the county
governments in part due to the additional cost
and expenses and burdens placed upon such mine
by the Federal Act, all to the damage and injury
of plaintiff AMAX for which it has no adequate
remedy, [Exhibit 10].
Plaintiff AMAX has payed to the Federal
Government in excess of Ten Million Dollars
($10,000,000.00) in 1978 due to the tax placed
upon it by §401 of the Act and will have to con-
tinue to make such expenditures during the year
1979 probably in excess of that incurred during
1978, all to its irreparable damage unless the
Court presently enjoins enforcement of the Act in-
cluding the tax, [Exhibit 9]. Plaintiff Peabody has
similarly paid and will continue to be forced to
pay such amounts.
Plaintiff coal companies are presently and will
continue to be mining upon prime farmland as
defined by the Secretary of Agriculture within
the State of Indiana [Exhibits 7 and 8]. There is
presently no known technologically possible
methods to return prime farmland to original
levels of productivity. There were no such
methods known or available at the time of the
—45—
enactment of the Act. Plaintiff coal companies
must begin submitting applications for permits at
the end of April, 1979 in which permits, the
Federal Government may require a showing of
technological capability to return the land to
original and equal levels of productivity in which
event plaintiff coal companies will be barred
from conducting mining operations on such prime
farmland. Such prime farmland is interspersed
throughout the areas to be mined such that it is
not economically feasible to continue mining
operations if such prime farmland cannot be min-
ed and plaintiff coal companies in the event of
such actions by the Federal Government will be
prohibited from conducting mining operations
which will render the coal reserves owned or leas-
ed by the coal companies valueless, contrary to
the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States.
12. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
13. Plaintiffs are likely to prevail at the trial of this
action. As more fully shown in Plaintiffs’ Briefs In Op-
position to the Motion to Dismiss, this lawsuit draws the
constitutionality of the Act into serious doubt under the
Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the Fifth
Amendment. The Act is an unconstitutional usurption of
the powers reserved to the States with respect to land
use control and planning, a traditional area of state
sovereignty, and cannot stand as a valid exercise of
the commerce power because there is no rational
relationship between the facets of surface mining reg-
ulated and the adverse effects of surface mining on
air and water quality sought to be eliminated, upon
which relationship the validity of the Act depends; or at
the very least there are manners less intrusive upon
state sovereignty which are available to protect any
legitimate Federal interest [Exhibit 21].
_"
14. The issuance of a preliminary injunction with
respect to Title V of the Act will not impose an undue
burden or hardship on the defendants.
15. The issuance of a preliminary injunction of the
scope sought by the plaintiffs will be in the public in-
terest and the status quo before the Act should be
preserved in that:
2.
The Indiana legislature will be able to decide
whether to exercise its authority with respect to
the implementation of a state program with full
knowledge of the manner by which the Federal
Government can constitutionally regulate surface
coal mining and reclamation operations within the
State of Indiana, and will not be unlawfully coerc-
ed into enacting legislation which would cure the
constitutional infirmities.
The citizens of the State of Indiana will be af-
forded the right to be regulated by the state of-
ficials elected for that purpose, and will be af-
forded the benefit of their legislative machinery,
+ a the unlawful coercion attempted by the
ct.
It will prevent the loss of jobs, as was the result of
the closure of the Ayrcoe Mine, by reducing the
likelihood of the closure of other mines; and it will
avoid the blight that will otherwise result with
respect to future coal mining operations in In-
diana, which would in turn displace present State
land use policies and displace State policies con-
cerning the delivery of governmental services.
WHEREFORE, said plaintiffs pray that the foregoing
Motion be granted and that the Court enjoin:
1) the enforcement, except as to federal lands, of
§402(a) [80 USC §1232(a)] and Title V [80 USC
§1251-1281] and all regulations promulgated
thereunder; or
oe
2) the enforcem nt of §502(b) and (c); §503, §504, §505,
§506, §507, y508, §509, §510, §511, §512, §513,
§515(a), (bX2), (3), (5), (6), (7), (8), (12), (15), (16),
(17), (18), (19), (20), (23), (24), §518, §521, §522, and
§402(a), or any parts thereof and all regulations
promulgated under any of the sections, or
3) at the very least the Federal Government from
promulgating a federal program for Indiana until
after June 30, 1980, or until 60 days after the con-
clusion of the first convening of the General
Assembly of the State of Indiana after this Court
renders a final decision on the merits, and further
that this Court mandate the Secretary of the
Devartment of Interior to treat Indiana in all
respects as though such a date were the date es-
tablished by §504(a) and §503 as the latest time for
a state to submit a proposed state program; and
4) such other and further relief as is proper in the
premises.
/s/ G. DANIEL KELLEY, JR.
/s/ BYRON L. MYERS
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS,
INDIANA COAL ASSOCIATION, et al.
THEODORE L. SENDAK
Attorney General of Indiana
/s/ DONALD P. BOGARD
Chief Counsel
/s/ JANE M. GOOTEE
Deputy Attorney General
[Filed: March 9, 1979]
ifn
JOINT PETITION FOR EXPEDITED TRIAL
AND DECISION AND
STIPULATION AS TO PROCEDURE
The parties in the above consolidated actions, by
counsel, respectfully petition the Court for an expedited
trial and decision in these cases, and in order to
facilitate the same and reduce the issues, stipulate and
agree as follows:
1. Because of the significant constitutional issues in-
volved in these actions, it is to the benefit of each party
that a decision on the merits be rendered as soon as
possible, and particularly as early as possible in the
1980 session of the Indiana General Assembly.
2. As to the pending motion of plaintiffs for a
preliminary injunction, the parties stipulate and agree
that the Court need not decide the same and may
proceed to a final disposition of the issues subject only to
the Court’s having taken defendants’ motion to dismiss
under advisement and that the allegations of the motion
for preliminary injunction shall be taken as being a part
of the complaints.
3. To conserve the time and effort of the Court and to
expedite the final resolution of these proceedings, the
parties stipulate and agree that coal industry plaintiffs
withdraw the following issues from these actions with-
out prejudice to raising such issues in other actions:
a. Rhetorical paragraph 31 of the complaint con-
cerning the search and seizure issues.
b. Rhetorical paragraph 33 concerning the Sixth
Amendment issues.
c. Rhetorical paragraphs 36, 37, 38 and 39 con-
cerning whether § 515(bX7) should be enforced dur-
ing the interim program.
d. Rhetorical paragraph 35 concerning
§ 521(aX(1) permitting private citizens access to
private property.
—49—
e. Rhetorical paragraph 40 concerning the
NEPA issues.
f. That part of the request for relief relating to |
the withdrawn allegations.
4. In the interest of judicial economy and for the con-
venience of the Court, the parties further stipulate and
agree that the exhibits and affidavits filed in support of,
in opposition to and/or in response to defendants’ motion
to dismiss [motion for summary judgment] and plain-
tiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, and the
testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing
on the foregoing motions held on April 18, 1979, be
made a part of the record and considered by the Court
as the evidence in the trial on the merits with the only
additional evidence being plaintiffs’ Exhibit 45 attached
hereto! as to which defendants have no objection.
5. The parties further stipulate and agree that the
time for further briefing on the merits of this action
shall be ten (10) days for the plaintiffs’ brief, which time
shall begin to run from the date of the Court’s Order
Entry on this petition, that defendants shall have ten
(10) days from and after the filing of plaintiffs’ brief to
file a responsive brief, and that plaintiffs have five (5)
days after the filing of defendants’ brief to file reply
briefs.
6. The parties further agree that if the Court desires,
an oral argument can be held after the briefs have been
filed.
1 The relevant portion of plaintiffs’ Exhibit 45 is set forth
at p. 102 infra.
il
5
WHEREFORE, the parties pray that the Court grant
this joint petition for expedited trial and decision and
approve the stipulation as to the procedures.
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS,
INDIANA COAL ASSOCIATION, et al.
/s/ G. DANIEL KELLEY, JR.
/s/ BYRON L. MYERS
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
STATE OF INDIANA, et al.
/s/ JACK O’NEILL
Deputy Attorney General
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
/s/ HAROLD R. BICKHAM
(Filed: February 27, 1980]
a
EVIDENCE
Plaintiffs’ [Appellees’] Exhibits’
Plaintiffs’ Deposition Exhibit 3
To Deposition
Of R. Neil Sampson
Report of the
Interagency Task Force on
the Issue of a Moratorium or
a Ban on Mining in Prime Agricultural Lands
prepared by:
Office *f Management and Budget
Soil Conservation Service
Bureau of Mines
Federal Energy Administration
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
The issue of imposing either a moratorium or a ban on
prime farmlands arose in February, 1977 during the
interagency review of proposed amendments to the sur-
face mining legislation. Those agencies expressing a
need for a moratorium on mining on prime farmland
based their view on two studies on the effects of surface
2 The =a and testimo vy set forth herein was presented at
the hearin laintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction
and defen ante’ otion to Dismiss held on April 18, 1979. By
stipulation of the parties, see p. 49 supra, the Court ordered
that such exhibits and — be made part of the record
and — by the Court as the evidence in the trial on the
meri
— =
mining on prime farmlands in Illinois, one of which was
funded by the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, and the other conducted by Jack Doyle of the
Environmental Policy Center.
These studies indicated essentially:
°
°
°
there are serious questions as to whether high
capability agricultural lands strip mined for coal
can be returned to their original capacity within
an acceptable period of time. The test is not
merely showcase growth but productive quality
yields on a sustained basis and on a par with the
full agricultural value of whatever grew there
before mining.
the problems with the Illinois Mined Land
Conservation and Reclamation Act and Rule
1104 (Lands To Be Reclaimed For Row Crop
Agriculture) is that nowhere in the law or the
regulations are either pre-mining agricultural
productivity or pre-mining agricultural yields
referenced. Additionally, the Illinois strip mine
law contains no provision for designating pro-
ductive agricultural land as unsuitable for strip
mining. As a result, the law encourages the
direct and indirect loss of agricultural land
through variance procedures and allowances for
less productive restoration such as from row-
crop use to pasture use.
once areas in Illinois have been mined, they
generally are not returned to intensive agricul-
tural purposes, but rather the land uses general-
“4 = to urbanization, highways, and pasture-
and.
So long as there are deep mineable coal reserves
in the quantities found in Illinois, there is no
need to gamble away long term productive
agricultural capacity at the hand of the short-
term mining economies. '
$3
As a result of the findings expressed in the two studies,
an interagency task force was convened tu examine the
particular issues of
° assurance that the productivity of soil can be
restored after mining in prime farmlands
° the impact of a moratorium or ban on coal pro-
duction reserves, and electric power generation
° the impact on land availability for food pro-
duction if mining were allowed to continue on
prime farmlands.
Prime Farmlands: The Situation!
The Department of Agriculture has been deeply in-
volved in this issue for the past few years. In October
1975, the Soil Conservation Service adopted a definition
of prime farmland to provide some consistency across
the Nation. Prime farmland is defined as the land best
suited for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed
crops. It has the soil quality, growing season, and
moisture supply to produce sustained high yields of
crops, economically, whenn (sic) treated and managed
according to modern farm methods. Prime farmland, is
the farmland that gives highest yields with minimum
inputs of energy or capital, and with the least damage to
the environment in the process. It is the land which can
be foarmed (sic) for generations with sustained high
yields with proper management.
In 1975, the Soil Conservation Service conducted a
Potential Cropland Study to evaluate the status of the
1 Notes on presentation by R. Neil Sampson, Soil Conserva-
tion Service, at Congressional Research Service Workshop on
Agricultural Land, Washington, D.C. lebruary 3, 1977.
(Footnote in original.)
a
Nation’s croplands and the potential to bring additional
land into production. The study was done by re-
sampling a selected group of the 160-acre sample plots
used in the 1967 Conservation Needs Inventory. This
provided a statistically valid sample at the National and
Farm Production Region level as illustrated in Figure 1.
In addition, it also provided data on the amount and
current use of the Nation’s prime farmland. Compari-
sons of the current land use on the sample plots with
their 1967 use identified the land use change over the 8-
year period between the two surveys.
The Potential Cropland Study results indicate a total of
384 million acres of prime farmland in the United
States. About 65% of this land is cropland or 250 million
acres. Thus, prime farmland accounts for 62% of the 400
million acres currently cropped in the United States. Of
the 134 million acres of prime farmland not now in
cropland, 24 million acres have a high potential for
conversion to cropland with no developmental problems.
Another 15 million acres have a high potential for
conversion to cropland but will require added invest-
ment to overcome problems. An additional 9 million
acres have medium potential for conversion to cropland,
but with more severe problems. Finally, 86 million acres
have low to zero potential for conversion because of
serious developmental problems. . . . [Pages 1-2.]
* * *
Regional Status of Prime Farmlands
The United States is divided into ten Farm Production
Regions. Of these ten regions, the Corn Belt region has
the largest acreage or 77 million acres of prime farm-
land. The Northern Plains regions is second with 72
million acres of prime farmland followed by the
Southern Plains with 67 million acres. The three regions
—55—
with the smalles (sic) acreage of prime farmlands are the
Pacific region with 14 million acres and the Northeast
and Mountain regions, each having approximately 18
million acres.
For prime farmland cropped, the Corn Belt region leads
the Nation with 61 million acres, followed by the
Northern Plains and Lake states with 58 and 30 million
acres respectively. The Southease (sic), Northeast, and
Pacific regions have the lowest acreages of prime farm-
land being cropped with about 9 million acres each. Dis-
tribution of total cropland, total prime farmland, and
prime farmland cropped in the United States is pro-
vided in Table 2.
Table 2
Distribution of Total Cropland,
Total Prime Farmland and Prime
Farmland Cropped in the United States
ofnet Total Total Prime Prime Farmland
Production Cropland Parmland Cro da
Region (million acres) (million acres) (million acres)
Appalachian 20.3 26.4 13.2
Corn Belt 86.7 76.9 61.2
Delta States 20.2 29.6 15.2
Lake States 44.1 38.4 30.4
Mountain 40.6 18.1 18.7
Northeast L723 17.9 8.9
Northern Plains 90.8 72.0 58.1
Pacific 21.9 13.8 8.9
Southeast 16.5 23.6 9.0
Southern Plains 41.0 67.2 29.2
United States 400. 384. 250.
Production from Prime Farmlands
Around 66% of the 1975 crops of grain, corn, soybeans,
wheat, cotton and feed grains were grown on prime
farmland. Nearly all of the cotton was grown on prime
—56—
farmland or 89%. Of the other crops, 75% of the corn
harvested as grain, 70% of the soybeans, 61% of the feed
grains, and 54% of the wheat was grown on prime
farmlands. Yields from prime farmlands are sub-
stantially higher than those from non-prime lands and
are illustrated in Table 3. [Page 4.]
* * *
Loss of Prime Farmland
A total of 23 million acres have been converted to urban
and water uses during the period from 1967 to 1975.
This represents an average of three million acres per
year converted to these uses during that period. The
greatest losses are in prime farmlands as illustrated in
Table 5. An annual average of one million acres of
prime farmland was converted to urban and water uses
during this period. Another one million acres of non-
prime land in classes II through IV were also converted
each year. Of the 8 million acres of prime farmland lost
to urban and water uses, 6.5 million acres were
converted to urban uses and 1.5 million acres to water
or 80% and 19% respectively.
* * *
The United States has ample farmland to meet its
domestic needs for the foreseeable future. However,
there are some persons who believe that there exists an
ethical responsibility to retain as much as possible the
existing farmlands of this Nation. In their view there is
a humanitarian aspect of this problem and they believe
that every acre of prime farmland that goes out of
production represents loss of food stocks which could be
made available to people in less developed areas of the
world. This view generally does not recognize the issues
associated with getting the food from the United States
=. a
to those needy in other countries, e.g., transportation
costs, foreign limitations of the less developed countries,
and the views of other countries exporting agricultural
products. [Page 6.]
* * *
Arguments on the issue of whether prime farmlands can
be reclaimed to their original level of productivity.
A. Arguments suggesting that prime farmlands can be
reclaimed to their original level of productivity.
° For several years, experts have encouraged
making a decision before mining is done as to
the intended use of the land after mining. Plans
are made for grading and other operations
needed for the intended land use. Generally, the
land use selected is a low intensity use for which
little care in placement of the spoil is needed. As
a result, a site barely suitable for the intended
use is created, with a soil having a productive
capcity or use potential much lower than that
which might have been constructed if the soil
materials had been placed in the proper se-
quence. For many areas, it is possible to
construct soils with use potential even higher
than that which had existed before mining. The
only State that now requires separation of A and
B horizons and proper sequencing for soil
placement is North Dakota. Studies there in-
dicate that prime wheatland can be reclaimed to
original levels of productivity.
° Studies reported by McKormick, of the Soil Con-
servation Service in eastern Ohio, and southwest-
ern Pennsylvania, utilizing soil reconstruction
methods, indicate that soil reconstruction can
full (sic) restore or, in many areas, actually im-
prove the productive capacity of mined lands.
° The German experience.
° Steps needed in soil reconstruction in order to
achieve these results are as follows:
°
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
9)
10)
hin
Obtain detailed soil survey of proposed area
of surface mining to determine properties
of each soil horizon.
Determine by testing, or by general infor-
mation in the area, the nature of each
geologic stratum above the coal. Use this
information to identify toxic or otherwise
objectionable strata that should be buried
and to identify properties of the mixture of
strata likely to be produced by the pro-
posed mining technique.
Evaluate the comperative quality of the B
horizon of the natural soil and the mixture
of geologic strata to be produced by mining
and choose the best material for the sub-
surface layer of the reconstructed soil.
Remove and stockpile separately the entire
A horizon of the natural soil.
Where it is shown to be most favorable for
the reconstructed soil, excavate and stock-
pile separately material from the B horizon
of the natural soil according to plans for
mixing (or keeping separate) selected por-
tions of the B horizons to provide a
favorable subsurface horizon of uniform
thickness throughout the area to be surface
mined, i.e., on all the soil series that occur.
Carry out mining operation, carefully bury-
ing all objectionable strata.
Grade spoil to planned land configuration.
Regrade the material from the B horizon
over the graded spoil to the planned
thickness to form the subsurface horizon of
the reconstructed soil.
Regrade the A horizons over the subsurface
horizon in a uniform thickness.
Seed as soon as grading is completed.
The soil requirements of a productive soil are
well known to soil scientists and agronomists.
The properties of the soil at the site of surface
—§9—
mining can be accurately determined before
mining from soil surveys. If the soil horizons
are carefully stockpiled and returned to the
graded spoil in proper sequence after mining,
the productive capacity of most soils will be
restored within a few years. Care will be
required in excavation and handling to assure (a)
that the soil horizons are properly identified, (b)
that the A and B horizons be excavated selec-
tively and stockpiled separately, and (c) that
erosion and contamination of the stockpiled soil
materials from these horizons be prevented. Also
care will be required in replacing and regrading
these soil materials after mining to assure that
material from each horizon is graded over the
area in uniform thickness, that the soil materials
be replaced in proper sequence, and that over-
compaction or puddling are avoided and proper
soil compaction is achieved.
If the operational capability outlined above can
be assured, the productive capacity of the soil
that existed before mining can be restored in a
reasonable time.
B. Arguments suggesting that Prime Farmlands cannot
be Reclaimed to their Original Level of Productivity
°
While there are theories and proposals for
proper land reclamation there is no demonstra-
tion to date which shows that prime farmland
used for row crops such as corn and soybeans
can, after having been reclaimed after strip
mining, give equivalent crop performance. No
tests like that have yet been made in Illinois.
Because of this 22 projects will be getting
underway through USDA Cooperative State
Research Service to demonstrate the proper
recovery procedures and the best crop produc-
tion possible. For example, the University of
Illinois is starting a 5-year experimental pro-
—60—
gram on two tracts with different geological
strata. The plots in these tracts will be laid out
and prepared in the summer of 1977. First crops
will be grown in 1978. Allowing for break-in
period, normal crop rotation and fluctuations in
the weather, 5 years are needed to assess land
capability.
Dr. Ivan Jansen, agronanist (sic) in charge of the
University of Illinois program will study the
following:
° Soil character - particle size, structure,
density, chemical properties, compaction.
Soil organisms - population can decline
markedly during mining and reclamation
procedures and may take years to recover.
Root development in virgin and reclaimed
soils. Barriers to root development will be
noted on roots dug up.
How different mining techniques change
character of soil as related to premined
landscape and geological column.
Hydrological characteristics of the re-
claimed soil and the water table. Reclaimed
land has less water holding capacity and
permits less water infiltration and causes
more of rains to run off. Irrigation will be
used if intermittent dry spells cause this
handicap to prevent adequate growth. These
problems are largely caused by compaction
in piling and spreading the soil layers with
rubber tire equipment. The study will deter-
mine how soon compaction will be overcome
and whether planting grass and legumes
will be necessary to loosen the soil.
Variations in thickness of A and B horizon
topsoils will be studied versus crop perform-
ance.
If recovery tests are successful during the mora-
torium, and previous studies give hope that they
we
will be, then prime lands may be strip mined
provided they are recovered by sound procedures. If
tests are not successful, then prime farmlands will
have been preserved instead of degraded. This is
consistent with USDA policy that prime farmlands
should be preserved and with the EIS requirements
to evaluate proposed changes to prime farmlands in
Federal programs.
°
Even after this experimental work has been
completed, it still isn’t known whether the
productivity levels can be obtained. At this time,
estimates of the time frame required to achieve
expected productivity may be 10 to 30 years.
[Pages 9-12.]
* * %
A ban on surface coal mining, summarized nationally by
major coal region in the U.S. provided in Table 2, would
result in:
°
ae
Annual production impacts of 74.3 million tons,
or 18.6% of strip mining production, or 10.1% of
the total U.S. coal production in the first year of
enactment. Total prime farmland involved would
be 21,800 acres or .006% of total prime farmland.
In the Illinois, Southeastern Indiana, Western
Kentucky coal fields, where the impacts are
likely to be the most severe, annual production
impacts of 44.5 million tons, or 49.4% of strip
mining production in those States and 10 billion
tons of strippable reserves in those States would
be experienced in the first year. Prime farmland
involved would be 13,800 acres, or .0005% of total
prime farmland. [Pages 17-18.]
* * *
If mining were permitted to continue on prime farm-
lands,
°
~_—
Annual prime farmland disturbed would be
21,800 acres, or .006% of the total prime
farmlands based on current levels of production.
This amounts to less than .006% of all prime
farmland acreage under cultivation of all crops
in 1976. Even if the entire 21,800 acres were
assumed to come out of corn production, the
projected U.S. corn production in the 1976/77
crop year would be less than .04%.
A moratorium on surface mining with a grandfather
clause for existing mines would result in:
°
No coal production losses from existing mines
but from planned new production scheduled to
come on line within the first geod of enactment,
10.4 million tons or 9.2% of new production
would be affected. These impacts are under-
stated because they do not include second, third,
and fourth year impacts. Planned new produc-
tion for 1978 and 1979 will also be affected. Coal
sooner impacts for 1980 and beyond will not
as significant as those experienced in the
earlier years as coal production shifts to non-
prime lands.
Reserve losses would be the same as those ex-
perienced under a ban during the period of the
moratorium.
Finally, it should be noted that in an analysis completed
last year by an eminent agricultural economist, Earl
Heady of Iowa State, in cooperation with USDA and
Interior, it was found:
°
that the supply of U.S. farmland will be
adequate to meet domestic needs and provide
supplies for export through the year 2000.
though the adequacy of food supply was found
to vary according to different assumptions about
export levels and conservation standards for land
and water, availability of farmland was not a
serious constraint in any of the scenarios
analyzed.
oe Se
The Economic Research Service currently reports, for
example, that ending stocks of wheat in the U.S. will
increase wheat from 339 million bu. in 1973/74 to 1,095
million bu. in 1976/77. For the same period, ending
stocks of rice are projected to increase rice production
from 7.8 million cwt. to 49.6 million cwt., and ending
stocks of feed grains will result in an increase of the
same from 23.7 short tons to 27.3 short tons. [Pages 18-
19.]
Summary Impacts on Long Term agricultural capacity if
no moratorium or ban is imposed
° The fact that some prime farmland will be
taken out of production for a period of time, or
will be able to support diminished production
levels for an additional period, should be bal-
anced against the social utility of mining the
strippable coal reserves underlying that land. As
a practical matter, the economic balance is not
really at issue. If one assumes that the market
price of a given commodity bears some relation-
ship to its economic and social value to society,
the social investment decision for most of the
Nation’s coal fields will almost always favor the
coal. In the most simple terms, the fact is that
the price utility and other major coal users are
willing to pay for the resource will normally far
exceed the long term income potential of a given
plot of land for agricultural production.
Capitalized at 5%, the value of an acre of prime
farmland for agricultural production will gen-
erally not exceed $600 in Illinois. This assumes a
long term net return fer corn production of
approximately $.25 per bushel at sustained
yields of 120 bushels per acre. This compares
with an average return of at least $12,000 -
apie.
$18,000 per acre for surface coal production in
Illinois assuming a net return of $2-$3 per ton at
an average recovery factor of approximately
6,120 tons per acre.
With regard to food production impacts, even
assuming a worst case senario (sic) in which the
entire 13,800 acres of prime farmland annually
affected by surface mining in the Illinois,
Indiana, Western Kentucky coal fields were lost
permanently to farm production, total acreage
losses over a 30 year period would amount to
414,000 acres. Further assuming that the entire
impact of the loss would be on corn production,
the total production loss in the 30th year would
be less than 1% of national 1976/1977 yields.
[Page 21.]
Se ne Fee
MME PmmETiE®
oer Om FT) eee er J
ond On ee earns at ©
eer © Oe fete
x
z
. i | 1 a we of va
> yates atin Sine Ae a: tre ye Pry.
a r 4 > ‘ .
>> Pear. \
! Sk (md Si 1) fdas i
Af
whet A
Nan
are) tl @
?
é
iii
:
'
J
.
ee A088) OF ORT) FERC EN! FORE Fame ae
{ PERCENT 10 1) PERCENT Pome Fame ame
Red OE Rae FORCE Peet Fate ane
Pra AREA OF POTENTIAL SURFACE MINING
WED sinc ovr aneas
ee
” GUMTINGTQN cabs
— ia Fs
oe aN .
wi G YY
‘
2
. . AREA OF POTENTIAL SURFACE MINING
AND
LOCATION OF PRIME FARMLAND
EXHIBIT 2
+
‘oe ; “vi me
+ rg Se ek a
gt “3 , ahh
as
x Powrtes ’ pa
ns eel et ee awe | 79 HAR
wag, 3 p= tr, 7 ar te , $ «
Tea - V, i .
2 S “= _ , Le -TF g
4 - — a
Raat Agen oT 7 v4
. 7 Ww. ome ‘
Von { me - ?
wit PoPprer *rO a
+ o A -
cy of ma h M4
2 — . ” ti — ~
f ~ Paes
wt \, ¥
om © > ia
2 SES Mes i.
os %.. > ¥ , nd
> > nm
s " mi
va u? :. ‘
seh : Re
iy ° A / vf
rR) +o ¢ '* ~
‘ _s b~ >
ad ° ~ ¢
f 1
a1 . eee -
bs « a .* "— y
Pte ~
pee “A ,
- .
: - ¥
‘ ifag
y tal } “ a
a t c
fa =
bal 4
a
.
r)
iaanpat ,
> +
\
a
»
, f "a
s&h
,
oe ~
a *
j Awe On
’ + Ps
7 “ ,
‘
~ -
P d
“ 5
‘
ry Swit ters
>.
AREA OF
POTENTIAL
UNDERGROUND MINING
MINED OUT AREA
EXHIBIT 3
AREA OF POTENTIAL
UNDERGROUND MINING
Rimoamus waist
A EARL) LEVEL, HLL ONO POORLY DOAmED \OamT NOL) Om FLOne
nae
© MEAAL! LEVEL POORLY DOemee LanDT WOT.) Am” GRGame KOK
—
” Bee tee
ems Gee teens
C MRARL) LEVEL POURLT OR AmED LOnmT KOHL) me OUT ent AnD
(ecu tome pero ry
EARL! LE /EL POORLY DO AMED CL ATHY NOL) mm Lacun Tome
verowrs
Stted ome Be vatnme
Pomme Artes Menchee
Line etient ebony
© LEVER AD OPUS FEL OR AmEO (One HOF) Om Lame ano
COA VELLT CUT ¥AMH OPON TY
% OPUS OTL. OOemED Ame mEeeL) ETE. POORLY Oeemee
tempt en)
f a
| | Pe ates temee Ontw ee
© UOPUE 68.) COED Caml LOL) EOL lam Lame COrONTS
” ©] Pracctan Gtenatiotd sAgsehing
Se ee
- ates
| EARL LOFEL, POORLY OR AmHEO WATT KOrLs mt Onn OF Lonne
An OL acran THE
Beeeteie Beet
tehe teee
4 RAREST LEVEL POORLY DRRMED \Oamt HOH) mH GL arian THK
EARLY LEVEL, POORLY ORAMEED CLATET OMS GLacian TH
A ROP UNE FELL CRAMER AA HEARN LETH, POOELY OHamED VOnmt
ame
Res cet! Menmmane F cwerte
2 OPUS FEL, CRAMER AMD EARLY LEVEL POUR) OhamnO
CAATET SOLS OF GLACIAL THE
MARAT LAVEA POORLY OR AmnO LTT NOK HTH Peace
Rerte Pome Cotes
Crates Ree ay
ed
Se ee
=
WOPUS FHL. ORAmED WATT NOLS mL ORM Ame we eee
mane one to
© OPE FFL, CORED LTT ORD CLATEY SO) LOO ame
Lesesestte Solem Ties
Come men Bes cmeree
eo
ne
Cormeen ge hoe
PRIME FARMLAND OF INDIANA
=
ro
a
TRA THERES mets Ome
oT Cte Oateed nme
- {
o a ed
be hte
= Bate Gem Sete
Spores .
ee eeeret
SON REGIONS OF INDIANA
ew -< — — oon
salen = a cae
tee tons 2 seany © - Petes om. Ome
~
yt Me, 08S OF 1 PERCENT Pewee Fate ane
ethene clnpee aceneinne MCory! ghee! wit Ome Prmnen, Sete
ay
= © lets Semed we Ge inns sam hevey Pevensie (Veseeeith gine
i.i=} j fs PUOCHNT 10 19 PORCET Peme Paes ane Gustonn Cavite Gann Be
7; ‘
ae ' Gest tree oom Ore \Veseweet gee
A000) 0M Tene PRC ENT Peet Fate ome oo o—
UA OOPARTEENT OF SOmCUL TURE HO COMMER YS Tom Mee rice . ~<a =
2 cempeanes ont t PH wenae cee. - :
PORQUE CHET ERW TY AORN TEAL FEPTRMENT 114 hoe
Am COOPERATIVE Eh) ENON er E
" EXHIBIT 4 pei erg So
—69—
EXHIBIT 5
AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES E. WIER
Charles E. Wier, being first duly sworn, states:
1. I am employed by AMAX Coal Company, a Divi-
sion of AMAX Ince. in the position of Senior Manager-
Exploration.
2. I received a Ph.D. in 1955 from Indiana Universi-
ty in Economic Geology. I was employed jointly by the
Indiana Geological Survey and the Department of
Geology and when I left these employments in 1974, I
held the positions of Head of the Coal Section of the In-
diana Geological Survey and was Professor of Geology in
the Department of Geology at Indiana University.
Thereafter, I was employed by AMAX Inc. in the Inter-
national Group in coal and diamond exploration in
Africa. In March 1976, I became employed by AMAX
Coal Company in my present position. I have authored
30 professional publications concerning Indiana coal and
in my employment, I had direct experience in the ac-
cumulation and distribution of data concerning coal in
the State of Indiana.
3. Based on my educational background, and my
work experience within the State of Indiana, I have had
pers subject to my direction and control Exhibits 1,
2 and 3.
4. Exhibit 1 sets forth by the heavy dark boundary,
the Eastern Interior Region of coal reserves within II-
linois, Indiana and western Kentucky. This coal area is
also known as the Illinois Coal Basin. The basin is a
shallow, sedimentary and structural basin wherein the
rocks (including coal seams) dip toward the center of the
basin in southeastern Illinois. Several individual coal
seams extend over much of the total basin in the con-
figuration of a shallow saucer. Thus, a coal seam in
southwestern Indiana dips toward the southwest, toward
the center of the basin in Illinois. The same coal seam in
western Illinois, in the vicinity of East St. Louis dips to
~~
the southeast towards the center of the basin. Surface
mining in the basin occurs along the periphery of the
basin in Indiana, Illinois and western Kentucky where
the coal seams come to the surface. These seams are
covered with 300 to more than 1000 feet of sandstone
and shale in the center area of the basin. Thus, in the
center area of the basin these coal seams cannot be min-
ed wd oo mining methods, but only by underground
methods.
5. The area of the Illinois Basin within Indiana in
which potential surface minable reserves are located is
set forth on Exhibit 2 within the area outlined by the
dark black line. The dark black spots within the outlin-
ed area are the mined-out areas. In the Indiana portion
of the Illinois Basin, coal dips to the southwest at about
20 feet per mile. Thus, the outcrop of the lower most
coals are to the east of the outcrop of the higher coals.
The potential area for surface mining has been outlined
on Exhibit 2 by constructing a line along the outcrop of
the lowest strippable coal and a line west of the outcrop
of the lowest strippable coal and a line west of the out-
crop of the upper most strippable coal. These are facts
generally known based upon prior geological surveys.
The area shown on Exhibit 2 was constructed assuming
that nearly all of the future surface mining will be in
coal seams named III, IV, V, VI and VII. There are
other coals that have an outcrop area to the east of these
and that have been mined on a small scale in past years.
These lower coals occur in restricted areas and are not
included in the surface mine area on the map. Only
small amounts of coal are available for future mining
outside of the area outlined with the black line on Ex-
hibit 2. The east line of Exhibit 2 showing the area for
potential surface mining in Indiana is the crop line of
Coal III and the west line shows the limit of the area
where Coal VII is less than 150 feet deep. Because the
depth of these seams from the surface are on the order
of 100 feet or less, this makes all of the area between the
two constructed lines potential surface mining areas on
each coal seam where it is 0 to 150 feet deep. Much strip
ee, ON
mining has already been done in this area as is shown
by the solid black patterns. These black patterns repre-
sent areas on each of the Coal Seams III through VII
where surface mining has already occurred plus some
shallow underground mine areas that intermixed with
stripping. Not all of the potentia) surface minable areas
will or can be mined. Man-made structures such as
cities, airports, major highways, dams, etc. will prevent
mining. It is also unlikely that water saturated river
valleys can ever economically support surface mining.
6. Exhibit 3 sets forth the area of Indiana for poten-
tial underground mines within the Illinois Basin. The
coal seams that are thick enough for mining un-
derground are Coals III, IV, V, VI and VII. Because
these coal seams dip to the southwest at about 20 feet
per mile, each seam becomes too deep for surface min-
ing within a few miles of the outcrop and west of the
past and present surface mining areas. Thus, the poten-
tial area for underground mining is west of that area
shown as available for surface mining on Exhibit 2. The
maximum area available for underground mining
overlaps slightly with that available for surface mining.
That is, where Coal V crops at the surface, Coal III is
about 150 feet deep, which is too deep for surface min-
ing. The area for underground mining colored in blue on
Exhibit 3 was constructed by drawing an east line
where Coal III is 150 feet deep, which is in the same
position as where Coal V crops at the surface. In the
area shown on Exhibit 3 as the potential underground
mining area, not all of the seams are available for min-
ing in any one place and in some areas possible none of
the seams would be economically minable. However, in
most of this area there is potential at some time in the
future for underground mining in at least one seam.
[Dated: March 6, 1979] /s/ CHARLES E. WIER
a,
EXHIBIT 6
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT L. MAJOR
Robert L. Major, being first duly sworn, states:
1. I am employed by AMAX Coal Company, a Divi-
sion of AMAX Inc., in the position of Manager-Business
Research in the Planning Department.
2. I received an A.B. degree in geology from
Princeton University in 1960 and a Master of Science
degree from The Pennsylvania State University in
mineral economics in 1965, and I have done further
graduate work at Emory University (1960-61) and the
University of Illinois (1967-72) where I completed all
necessary course work for a Ph.D. degree in geography
with a minor in economics.
3. From April, 1965 until June, 1974, I was
employed as a minerals economist at the Illinois State
Geological Survey.
4. From July, 1974 until April, 1976, I was employed
aS a resources economist by Battelle Columbus
Laboratories in Columbus, Ohio with a specialty in
energy and coal economics.
5. Thereafter, until December 1976 when I joined
AMAX Coal Co., I was employed in the Energy and En-
vironmental Systems Division of Argonne National
Laboratory.
6. The extent of coal produced in Indiana and sold
within Indiana is set forth in Table I attached hereto
which indicates the trends in shipments of Indiana coal
to Indiana destinations for a period of 1972-1977 by type
of end-use consumers. From this it is clear that the
dominant markets for Indiana coal are located within
the State and that electric utilities account for the bulk
of the sales. The data is based on total coal shipped
regardless of the method of mining. As a practical
matter, since 99% of the current coal production in In-
diana comes from surface mines, almost the entirety of
—73—
the coal can be considered as having been mined by the
surface mining method.
7. In my position as Manager Business Research, I
am in charge of the maintenance of a computer data
base which contains the records of coal purchases by
electrical utilities in 1977 (the last full year for which
data is available at this time). This information is deriv-
ed from monthly reports filed by individual electric
utilities with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commis-
sion (FERC). Table II indicates the record of 1977 coal
purchases by all Indiana utility plants with a capacity of
25 megawatts or greater.
8. In 1977, the total production of coal in the State of
Illinois was 53,880,434 tons, of which 24,291,457 tons
were produced by surface mining and the remaining
29,588,977 tons were produced by underground mining.
(Source: Illinois Coal Facts, published by the Illinois
Coal Association, 1979.)
9. The source of the data on Table I and Table II are
indicated on the Tables and are sources generally used
by the business community and the federal government
for research and planning in making business and policy
decisions.
[Dated: March 7, 1979] /s/ ROBERT L.. MAJOR
am” ee
*LLIBT-Z1B1 ‘“Siacder
WOFINGESTC OFFS] pus Teo SnouyuNIT” ‘ABrou_ Jo queur.tedag/souyA JO NvaIMg ‘"s"p__:90.N0g
S.awoysny
ITS 03 squcudtys
s‘18 908 T's 0*08 S’6L "82 { BuUsfpuy Jo eSequso1eg su
° SIGUOISTY Bueypuyl oF
Sjuemipys ToD wuyypuy
6st =oB'BLT.OCé'E.:~COC«OLT.C‘éTO:~COC‘COGk'ER Tep.LISNpuy
zo CT: i) 3°0 PT Selva TTeIOY
t'o - - - - - SIUC SB By SyOO
8°e8 o'r c‘te z°ze 9°82 T°SL SOFFIT Cf1}09TT
(Teq0J, JO Wwusd10q)
(A : ‘ ‘ e ‘ T8IaQL
oss’é oes sez's ore 62l'r OOF T8pzIsnpuy
Ag nad s) 8g est 60T BLz SIeTVAg TT8I3y
r - - - - - SIUVT_ SBD BY SyOD
GLL‘LT «spe 'Lt) oeee'Lt) 6tbL'St gea'ot «BEST SOFFIT OF1W090Tg
List 9lat cist. —s-—«sBBT eet eet
(sway, 000)
LLOI-ZLEI ‘SuotzeUuTseg
BUBIPU] 0} S}UsUIdIGg [VOD BuUBIpUy UI Spudaty,
I 99% L
—75—
Table II
Indiana Coal Shipments to Indiana Utilities, 1977
Utility
Crawfordsville
Frankfort
Hoosier Energy
IMEC
IXEC
I?PALCO
IPALCO
IPALCO
(IPALCO TOTAL)
NIPSCO
NIPSCO
NIPSCO
(NIPSCO TOTAL)
Peru
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
Pst
PSI
(PSI TOTAL)
Richmond P&L
SIGECO
SIGECO
(SIGECO TOTAL)
INDIANA, TOTAL
Plant
Crawfordsville
Frankfort
Ratts
Breed
Clifty Creek
Stout
Pritchard
Petersburg
Bailly
Mitchell
Michigan City
Peru
Edwardsport
Gibson
Noblesville
Gallagher
Wabash River
Cayuga
Whitewater
Culley
Warrick
000 Tons
47
24
574
952
1,393
1,725
599
2,391
(5,075)
763
82
23
(867)
45
258
941
104
984
1,717
2,493
(6,496)
133
1,351
2,199
(3,550)
19,283
Source: AMAX Data Base - Based on FERC Form 423 data.
-_ =
EXHIBIT 11
AFFIDAVIT OF GILBERT S. GRAVES
Alcoa is and has been since July 1978 a member of the
Indiana Coal Association.
I am employed as Administrative Manager at Alcoa’s
Warrick Operations which is an aluminum plant
located in Warrick County, Indiana. The Warrick
Operations consist of: ownership of three and one-half
power generating units producing 582 megawatts; a six
pot line aluminum smelter; and aluminum ingot plant;
and an aluminum fabricating plant. As of January 1,
1979, Alcoa employed over 3,500 people at the Warrick
Operations.
I was familiar with the process by which the present
site of Warrick Operations was selected in 1957 for a
new aluminum plant. While there are diverse factors
that must be considered in making an aluminum plant
site selection including, but not limited to, access to
water, raw materials and a stable labor work force, the
principal reason why Warrick County, Indiana was
chosen was its close proximinty to a reliable and inex-
pensive source of energy—coal.
Since Warrick Operations was designed to consume
over two million tons of coal annually, Alcoa needed to
find a plant site with large quantities of suitable coal
reserves. Accordingly, Alcoa acquired in 1957 about a
45 year supply of coal before final arrangements were
concluded on the Warrick Operations plant and con-
struction began. Conversely, if Warrick County and the
surrounding environs did not contain significant quan-
tities of coal reserves, Warrick County would not have
been picked as the site for Alcoa’s new aluminum plant.
[Dated: March 5, 1979] /s/ GILBERT S. GRAVES
i
EXHIBIT 12
AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM M. KESTER, JR.
Will.am M. Kester, Jr., being first duly sworn states:
1. I am manager of Underground Mine Planning for
AMAX Coal Company, a Division of AMAX Inc.
2. I have been in underground planning from 1966 to
ree | aasers and I began working in the coal industry in
1953.
3. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in mining
engineering from West Virginia University in 1962 and
a Master of Science in mining engineering from West
Virginia University in 1966, and I have received further
graduate school training in geophysics and geology.
4. From 1963 to 1968 I worked with Consolidation
Coal Company ir mining engineering and planning as
well as projection. In 1968 I began working with Hum-
ble Oil Company [Exxon] and my last position was that
of head of underground mining engineering when I left
to come with AMAX.
5. If the 1977 Surface Act increases the cost of sur-
face mining coal to the extent that mining by the un-
derground method is made more competitive, and there
becomes a reason to shift to underground mining of coal,
it is unlikely such a shift would take place to un-
derground coal mining in Indiana. Rather such a shift
would be to underground co&i mining in Illinois or in
western Kentucky. This opinion is based upon by
background, training and experience in the un-
derground coal mining industry in Illinois and Indiana,
and upon the following.
6. The coal beds in Indiana are of Pennsylvanian age
and are a part of what is called the Eastern Interior
Coal Province which encompasses most of Illinois, the
southwestern extremity of Indiana and western Ken-
tucky. The deposition was thought to have occurred by
sediments being deposited from structural highs in the
west and the east.
1S
7. The portion of the province lying in Indiana is ac-
tually the very most eastern fringe of the basin. The
western fringe of the basin occurs east of St. Louis in II-
linois, generally slightly east of the Illinois River
drainage area. The center of the basin occurs on a struc-
tural low, running roughly north-south near McCleans-
ere Illinois and through the most southwestern point of
ndiana.
8. Underground production prior to 1950 was fairly
prominent in Indiana. Since that time underground
production has continually decreased until at the present
time it is almost inconsequential.
9. Several deep operations continued into the 1960’s
and 1970’s, as the King Station Mine operated by Old
Ben Coal Corporation and the Thunderbird Mine in Sul-
livan County operated by AMAX Coal Company. One
deep mine—V-Day Coal Company has also operated in-
termittently. Each of the above deep mines are now idle,
demonstrating one of the problems faced for deep mines
in Indiana. Each of the mines was closed primarily due
to economic and geological problems. Kings Station
ceased operation partly due to adverse roof conditions.
The Thunderbird Mine encountered difficult roof con-
ditions, sulfurballs as well as erratic coal thickness. Con-
ditions were less than desirable in both No. 6 and No. 5
seams. The reserves in the Thunderbird Mine were
never exhausted and economic consideration, due to the
above, dictated closure. The V-Day Coal Mine operated
intermittently from 1960 through approximately 1972
but was closed in part due to geological conditions and
increased cost.
10. At the present time there are only four un-
derground coal mines open in Indiana. Three of them
have inconsequential production, and the fourth, Squaw
Creek’s Spur Mine which accounted for 60% of the total
underground production in Indiana in 1978, is a
developmental mine whereby attempts are being made
to solve roof condition related problems.
—79—
11. Conclusions as to the reasons for the absence of
underground mining activities in Indiana in spite of the
substantial estimated “underground mineable” reserves
are:
a. The depositional environment is more stable in the
central part of the Eastern Interior Basin. The
odds are more favorable for finding extensive
reserves of thick, cleaner seams in the Illinois and
western Kentucky portion of the basin.
b. Many of the seams in Indiana are thinner and
multi-bedded with numerous shale partings in
several seams. The seams in Illinois and in
western Kentucky have greater thickness and
better conditions which are more conducive to
favorable deep mining ventures.
c. One of the basic problems in establishing viable
deep mining ventures in Indiana is the lack of
available large extensive, thick, deep mineable
coals having the desirable roof and floor conditions
required to commit the large capital expenditures
required for deep mining operations. As an exam-
ple, I was previously employed by a large energy
company prior to joining the AMAX organization.
This company was interested in a resource base
capable of supporting gasification and liquefaction
projects which would utilize Indiana _ coal
resources in a manner compatible with en-
vironmental concerns. Several such areas are
located in Illinois, but not one reserve area was
located in Indiana which could satisfactorily meet
project criteria through the period of 1968 to 1974.
d: Past experiences in deep mining ventures in In-
diana led to a stigma that deep mining conditions
in general are less desirable than those en-
countered in Illinois. Several geologic anomalies
contribute to such reputation or conclusion as:
(1) the fault systems which are known to exist
parallel to the Wabash River—the New Har-
mony Fault is an example;
= oe
(2) the highly undulatory nature of the No. 5
seam which has been encountered in several
active and potential deep mining areas;
(3) the occurrences of contemporaneous or post
depositional channels disrupting the
Seelyville coal and the interplay of such
channel deposits upon predicting adverse roof
conditions mentioned above.
12. The utilities which purchase coal under long
term contracts, generally require blocks of coal con-
taining up to 50 million tons. These are not available in
the Indiana underground reserves.
13. In general, the assimilation of the geological data
relative to deep mineable coals in Indiana and in light of
past and present ye okra suggest that as economical
surface mines are depleted or phased out for whatever
reason, the emphasis will be upon the development of
the Illinois deep mine coals prior to development of In-
diana underground coals.
14. It takes up to eight to nine years to develop a
deep mine including exploration drilling, evaluation,
mine design, approval of permits, mining construction
and production build-up. In the event of reduction of
surface mine production in Indiana extensive time
would be required before recoupment would be possible
from underground operations.
[Dated: March 2, 1979] /s/ WILLIAM M. KESTER, JR.
—
EXHIBIT 13
AFFIDAVIT OF RALPH E. CLARK
RALPH E. CLARK, being first duly sworn upon his
oath states as follows:
1. I am employed by the State of Indiana as Director
of the Bureau of Mines and Mining of the Indiana
Division of Labor.
2. As a part of the official duties of the Bureau,
records are kept concerning production of coal within
the State of Indiana and based on these records, the
following is the tonage reported by coal companies as
having been produced within the State of Indiana and
within various specific counties. The total figure for the
State of Indiana is estimated due to the failure of
several companies to report tonage or due to instances
where the companies refuse to report tonage.
TONS 1977 TONS 1978
STATEWIDE ANNUAL PRODUCTION
Underground Method 524,852 587,853
Surface Method 27,470,394 23,354,380
COUNTIES - SURFACE MINING
Clay:
AMAX 1,124,129 1,300,823
Peabody ~0- -0-
TOTAL 1,398,183 1,527,249
Green:
Peabody
TOTAL
Pike:
AMAX
Old Ben
TOTAL
Sullivan:
AMAX
Peabody
TOTAL
Vermillion:
Peabody
TOTAL
Warrick:
AMAX
Peabody
Squaw Creek
[ALCOA and Peabody]
TOTAL
SS
913,725
1,009,749
613,766
4,812,698
6,777,434
1,773,183
654,284
3,357,502
2,376,732
2,419,737
3,365,044
1,115,500
3,343,728
8,979,398
4. Further Affiant sayeth not.
[Dated: March 5, 1979]
/s/
1,428,693
1,554,142
76,286
3,915,301
5,427,953
1,317,932
577,254
1,962,618
1,947,341
1,989,677
2,469,624
2,552,602
1,317,025
6,851,427
RALPH E. CLARK
—s3—
EXHIBIT 14
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
Come now plaintiffs in the above entitled con-
solidated actions and request that the defendants admit
the following facts for the purpose of this action and
that a response be filed to this request within thirty (30)
days as required by the Federal Rules of Civil
— or in such shorter time as the Court might
order:
1. That the attached Exhibit 1 consisting of eleven
pages are genuine, true and correct copies of an official
publication of the United States Department of
Agriculture.
2. That the attached exhibit contains statistics which
are reliable and generally used by persons working in
agricultural related business.
STATE OF INDIANA
/s/ DONALD P. BOGARD
Chief Counsel, Office of
the Attorney General
IcE MILLER DONADIO & RYAN
/s/ G. DANIEL KELLEY, JR.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
[Filed: March 9, 1979]
a
Indiana
Crop and Livestock
Statistics
Annual
we | Crop and Livestock
Summary
1977
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATISTICS; Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service
. cooperating with
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
Agricultural Experiment Station © Department of Agriculturai Statistics, West Lafayette, IN, 47
—85~-
(NDIANA
AN .AL CROP ANN — SUMMARY
977
1
Issued Cooperetively By
‘U. $. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PURDUE UNIVERSITY
BOB BERGLAND, Secretary of Agriculture RICHARD L. KOHLS, Dean of Agriculture
E. KIBLER, Deputy Administrator, B. J. LISKA, Director of
STATISTICS; Economics, Statistics, and Agricultural Experiment Station
Cooperatives Service
Compiied and Prepared by
INDIANA CROP AND LIVESTOCK REPORTING SERVICE
Agricultural Administration Building
Purdue University
West Lafayette. Indiana 47907
Telephore: (317)-749-2429
EARL L. PARK, Agricultural Statistician in Charge
went ov cum | aawt wane | ee
tol
For statistical purposes, the counties
of Indiana are grouped into nine Crop ®
Reporting Districts (shown on the map at ea
right). These groupings represent divi-
sions of approximately equal size with ' -
similar soils, growing conditions and <A y
types of farming.
Crop Reporting Districts are used in
the compilation of most reports. It is ~~:
not possible to collect sufficient data §
for each county to make county estimates j setae ; = ©)
on a timely basis. It is possible to 4 = .
summarize data at a district level and bess
weight districts together by production ea
percentages to arrive ac the best State
estimates. mangoes vA | tna j
meals :
Many data series in this bulletin pre- ® oa
sent estimates for Crop Reporting Dis- _— wrt
tricts. Some series are further broken ton >
down into county estimates within dis- ®
wen 7)
omy ad ’
wets Ae SO
Indiana Crop Reporting Ouiricts
FOREWORD
This summary is the result of the continuing cooperation between tre farmer
and 1 of the
State of Indiana, the Agricultural Experiment
Station, Purdue University, and the Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives
——
through 1975. Included ane State
disposition, and other information related to crops; production and dnven ory
numbers of Livestock, 4 {
Labor and wage rates; and
fon major crop and Livestock item are also dncluded.
from 1866 through 1974 and county crop estimates from 1923 through 1974 are
also available upon request.
can. not function effectively without reliable information on
and marketing decisions can be based. To meet the needs of the fanmers aid
I wish to acknowledge the valuable assistance of the many Indiana farmers and
ibusinessmen who voluntarily provide the rau datz from which fie official
estimates are set. A special thanks is extended to our field enumeratonrs and
telephone enumeratonrs who ane a vital Link in our data gathering process, and
to alL members of the office who had a pant in dng cut the surveys, eval-
ch ane pracsented in Gus
uating the results and establishing the estimates wink
publication. ,
elie
“4a
—
, Clnneit
Pee
a,
fe
| as.
a
——
—— = =
ee
—x)
----
—_——
a
—_
_— =
—_—
_—— =
_—
jj,
=
ret aw
—— os
Figure 5.
1977
ee Corn Acres
Harvested a
i Gra
“<= bad
—88—
sie all awe | COMM FOW Gaaint ACHEAGE. YIELO ah PMODUCTION WY COUNTIES. INOT ana
IvTS ano 1976 MEVISEC. 4NO LOTT PRELIM i NanyY ‘ib
' ACHES WA LASTED ' YICLO PER acwe “Wace PuvOuct Om
ors. Cwery . +
t te . t+ 397% § LOT? 3 19 t 19% = t 1917
= TeOUSem) AcAesS - - GUSRELS + = THOUSAND 4USRELS -
De MANTOMs ce eeet 121.3 118.6 11a tT be 105%. 1309O9.% =140906.) = Lhe 30362
° : ei. 170.7 106 107° A le+?23.7 L¥re19.d lo+d05.4
7$.1 ev.0 100 113 106 6+86).% @-S1). 7.20.6
132-0 124.8 * 107 1o1° LL e@Al.A T#+1e2.0 L2s9e7.d.
167.0 \ea,7 ile ae" 413° 1$+193.0 LeeiSi.A 16+760.1
Te.) 70,7 ” th 103 6+839.¢ +00%,9 7+290.8
126.5 118.0 % 13 & lia ° 10+%*).1 Leellj. L3elAO.d .
73.3 4.7 %0 109 108 +1591 @.034,% TeSO2.1
WATE ccceee!t 135.0 ised 166.7 \os hile lie' leelolee 10+032.% iS.e24.e
'
TOT Acces! eT?" \ers.7 1eee,7 103.8 112.5 108.2 LOL+ 734.4 Lau 917.6 10%-400.3
'
2. CORPML coeeet 109.6 122.5 126.6 130 9 10e~ lee2}4.3 1#+639.6 L3+1Se@.2
COSGe nee : 97 Liwel 102.2 is lee 97° Li+k28.4% Llee7A.o 9.6Se.7
tiLanent, ee. 7e.2 Ch ivs 108 6+69S.) @+e)1.4 Sel 76.8
FA TOM. eee be.d 6e.0 ne 1% * 4+69).0 96923.1 TeAlLl ee
<vscius«o. 11469 121.9% bd 10 40+166.) \h+eo7.5 12+625.5
mange %.1 oe. de.) oo 1e7 ” Tedllea + OA4.0 9-400.1
@LAML onece oe.3 “.3 106 10¢ 93 6+303.7 V.eTese1 7.087.2
St. sOsamm..t a8,7 3.8 73.3 “~ 100 100 $:609.2 O+2AS.0 Te ?%e.)
CARED ccecet 8366 93.7 Ge.) * 10s % Belas.e VeAAD.2 @+393.0
'
TOT acccet T88.3 noe.” e38.7 7. 107.7 ~.7 7a+770.¥ 94+340.5 63+407.0
'
De WOME. ccceeet See? med $¥.6 70 97 7, 3+96S.¢ @+214.4 +790.)
MLENecccceet 87.6 8 ev.0 ae 7 % 6+9$3.) o.562.6 @+e73.7.
OR TMdeceeet O0.¥ “4.8 $e.1 oo os ¥) 3+768.0 #.734.1 &+@40.2
“VeTINGTOM..: $9.6 oe.S 00.0 AA ies 1o7 S+222.2¢ 7.210.5 o+397.1
LaAtatugececst 0.0 Te. ae.? “ 10s 12 6+630,0 7031.6 %-Oll.e¢
WL eccceeet 45.3 o4.7 v8.7? ve 163 hh $-47l.« 7.19S.8 ae719.5
STRUM meceeet 82.5 0.4 Se.i ws 3 a Deledet #+329.6 #+936.6
PELL Sccccece! 63.6 en.8 @3.1 be 1e? oe S+ee?.? 7.099.3 @-791.7
PHTTLE Ye ceeet WS 62.3 o.7 iT 103 1o2 #+628.4 @+e31.8 e+l63.4
'
TOTadccce! $44.3 o™.¥ $91.8 43.3 106.1 103.3 #6-+628.0 SY. S00.) e1+157.5
'
Be Seale ccccece! $7.9 ee.J 04.6 Sal ior 101 S404." @.710.5 0+59%.5
FUT AINe eeet ee. %.3 T3.7 lie 126 hi 7+603.7 ¥e397.4 O+1S7.1
WTOGQMENT..) LIT.e 137.4 142.9 112 lle 10a L3+l 20.7 1>+740.5 1$+J00.¥
DeEMecececest 16.% v.80 19.6 90 108 2 LeeTe.a <-009.0 Peiav.2d
POUR cccceet S21 e.) 04.5 lle ile Loe @+095.2 7.3%4,2 @+78e.0
PUTMAN. ceecet 44.5 2.0 72.6 et iw? iio @-fli.v 6.70.9 TOAT.0..
Tipeecawe..t 107.2 123.9 123.46 112 os er? Lieve. Lse@l4ed 14+79).5
VErmILLIOM..! 32.0 ye.) 37.2 112 ae * lee 3+$40.0 + eA2,% 2006.90
VIGDeccceees! 02.6 -@.3 “4.4? oe L] 91 ee20.2 weeee.l ee2AOe)
WORM cceeet Alel ta.) o@.2 126 19 aa Te@O1.2 @e197.3 +668.)
'
TOTAL oecet 422.7 710.9 Tle.6 ig.) 112.4 1ol.? 6a,Se3.) *0.201.1 72.821.0
'
S. SaeTrOLomtw.: $6.5 ee.7 1.2 80 ith 103 #oS15.7 Treen,” Ted12.3
WVOME nc cceeet G08 2.4 102.5 lle We i 10+OJe.0 Lheele.s Liejee.?
CLINTOM cece! LIM 137.7 132.0 126 5 103 Lee?ivel 19-4a8.5 13+$37.38
DECATUR. cere! 86.5 92.5 69.5 a’ 123 lie TeJee.d 1he324.% 10+Se¢.0
Ham icccese!t 008 Te.* T1L.2 110 107 106 Tedel.0 e.2W.7 7+37*.3
MAMTLTOMee eet 73.9 62.7 m4.) 108 113 he 7+930.4 ¥edT4,9 Aeti2.?
MANCOCA.seeet 03.7 1.7 71.5 “ us “ $-962.1 ee273.1 @+A26.0
MEMOMTCHS...: 84,0 72.7 73.2 162 120 ioe $910.1 o+7%6,6 TevSd.1
Ss ET a v6.3 63.6 3.7 122 ai 91 @.299.7 ve 245.6 o+916.90
PemGOm. ceeet $3.2 ba.? ee.5 117 Loy $-261.9 O.91S.6 $096.92
MATSOMseceet %.7 Lbilel 11a,7 105 1e?- as 10+143." The914.e 10+006.0
MARTOMecceest 26.7 2%.2 30.38 lee 10s 2072.4 3+162.3 3+149.9
WURGAMeccces! 65.0 Sel $3.9 a 118 102 &+2273.9% @+404.6 S$ee73.1
WVGHecccceee?t 93.7 97.9 1é@1.¢@ 7 12> 121 Ace2e.% 1401 ae#.0 12+274.8.
WELwleccecet 100.4 11262 110.¢ aa 115 100 6-820." 14+944.2 11+03%.7
TIPTOM.ccccet Gee Te.3 77.1 120 l2ae loe Te7T20.% Vemed.e 4298.08
'
TOTAL cweetiiO2.e 1325.9 132%,2 163.0 115.5 102.2 LLSsTS3.% 194619%,2 1350290.2
:
@. *ACKFOFD...: 22.8 anol as. v7 15 ie. 229%. SeO11.5 2eae2d.
Dal aeewe.c.et 47.7 ye.3 77.8 106 163 ”* 7-034.) 7.691.3 @+9e4.7
FAYETTE cceeet 3.3 deed *e.0 60 10s on 2+901.2 #021.) 34499.2
WET eccceeet 80,7 93.9 106.1 6s 1196 9): 4+0S2.9% 10.399. 9351.2:
SAV eccccccest 37.7 *l.e *2.6 e) oT aJ 3el2e.1 =+061.5 36Se7.1
® secet A062 Te.6 1.2 84 * 8s $859.6 40029.) 6081.9
UNTOMecceeset 32.5 45.6 %,1 100 168 108 J+2s0.% 215.8 3-670.)
WAYNE nccccee! 96.8 67.e ee.) 80 163 106 @+427.* 0-979.0 o+89e.)1
'
TOTALcees? £66.3 *32.3 *3¢.3 ee.7 166.7 %.7 WedST./ e7e3@l.? #3-037.0
'
—ORE_Eq[2]">#]>"#]#]#R#R2EE[[{E>Dp—p{)>=>20>000"0"0"0"00"0"""©®"N[="|==—=..:°:°e—e-30—>—>—
-60-
—89—
Table 10. comm row eHaint ACOEAGE. YIELO amo PROOUCTION uy Cuvmr 1S. Ino lamas
197% A L97TO EVISED. An LOTT -REL IM INAH
' aCh€$ me@vesTeD ' YICLO PER acre *®vO0ucT I On
OrsT. Ccowmry
1 ' ' ih : eve ft 1 ) 19? : ier?
+ TwOuSamy aches = - wuSHELs - = THOUSAND 4USHELS =
Te DOVIESS.ccee8 ve.3 er. o4.s 106 i3e 112 a+000.1 ile3ar.@ 9+aaS.1
WBesseset 97. i.e o2.0 % » les -“ SeSile. @eeA).2 @+04).7
122.6 110.0 ie wu? 1 Lhe@Oe.e = 140370.9 = LD eee.
— HHEEME oc oeee . . ie. ai) 102, 4297.4 e-024.¢4 #+092.%
148.5 128.4 hie 12e- lia L2e7e7.a 1te347,7 Le+4S).6
waatin 41.5 21. ™’ "1 ¥) Le@dec?d 4-423.) 1 +999.)
‘Pla€.. *1.9 1.7 90 1aa- M1. J+2la.? *+324.7 3+e26.1
Pvecy.. 102.1 %.7 100 15 loe 4312.0 «he PARA O-978.2
Srtncen.. $e.7 se. 7 63° “ 3+$23.0 ~+?07.9 #e361.5
WAL IVONe eset 70.4 oe.9 lee tiie 12. 4-066.0 TATA. Tava.
VAMOM Mra pier. i 36.6 31.8 loz lo? lie 3+2%0.7 30998.) J.O1e6S
Semrerecsens 37.3 oe.3 *3.1 v2 lo7- 1a 30428.) *+TTe,) SoALS.)
TOT Acces! TI¥.6 620.4 T%.% 100.8 112.0 103.2 72+$23.% o4.993,° 4}. 7ee,6
'
Be We. ccc eeet 3.4 3.6 Li) 109 104 218.2 393.4 370.3
¢.? *.? oe ” ed 359.7 bAeLA CAT.)
3-3 3e* bad ie. ” 204.6 3346.0 226.5
28.3 27.9 ga % 102 le@lica 4e377.9 2433.0
oe.7 a?.i "1 loz &+$25.5 7.$09,7 @rAld.e
20.8 0.1 7) 10s 9) Le97t.0 3-9nn.0 2-411.9
10.4 10.2 9) 100 THO. qa7.a 1015.0
. 20.6 20.8 ve ier w LeT¥?.a 3+047.0 2:S73.>
seeeees? 12.3 1$.2 15.6 ao ”» 101 982.1 1-292.) 1eS44.1
eA TNGTON..: 69,0 $1.9 %.3 el 10s 3+034.4 3+4A1.2 &+AS2.4
'
TOTAL cee! 224. 268.2 arr 64.2 103.1 9e.2 19302.) 23+249.2 23-627.6
:
Pe Chet nccecet 18.2 20.6 21.2 6 92 ‘7 1e#60.9 i+*79.0 2-068.)
eeoet 19.1 1%.@ 17.4 o2 oe bl 93$.3 L+e@?.) l+oed.?
FOIL IMeeset § 68,% *3.)3 4.5 ee ” lee De*71.l *.e9).) $+270.2
wr eoet 16.9% i?.e \e.$ 72 o ve 1+215.4 e729, 1+422.2
SOMMINGS cone! 2e.l Jie? 29.4 ae 13 ee 2+388.) 3+993.5 ZeA2?od
BID seccceest *.s $.7 $.6 iy) 10 106 207.7 $94.2 $40.0
MIPLEVecceeet v.11 3.2 Jeo 72 lo? lee 2+304%.0 3+463.4 3401.7
scot seewecet ide) ie.9 18.3 72 103 is 92.3 \+S38.) 1+7S5.0
SetTZEeano.: 7.@ 8.0 7.® ei * oe *26.0 724.7 770.1
'
TOTMecee! LTS.a 199.0 200.2 Te.* 101.2 LGhe® = ldeeSO.e (206132.7 205303.0
'
'
STATE. cecccees!SO30.0 0306.0 e210.0 .8 110.8 102.0 491+74@.0 644+009.0 433+020.0
:
-61-
wy:
“p Ss 4
ca - palmate
yore
60+
45-59.9
30-44.9
” = 15-29. ms
' velew 15
Z| a
os ” i} as
ta" Figure 6.
1977 Acres Harvested, Soybeans for Seans
-62-
Ak.
atebr ce
me te
SOVMRANSE = Avdimves VIEL ah “RUUUCTION of LUolei lide iudletas
197TH anc 1976 REVIS b+ AND LOT? PHFL IMI Many
ACRES. .ESTEO YIELO PEM acae we: Pwuouc row
* OFST. COunrY
s 3978 8 197% & 097 & L076 8 3076 & BOF? 8 1975 1976 1977
= TWOUSANO ACRES <- = BUSHELS - = THOUSAND 4USMELS ~
be BENTOMe.ceeet 887.9 63.7 4.5 8 Jo #1 3+332.2 3+043.2 3+906.9
AADPER cceceet 762 12.6 62.7 Pp) | 32 B)] 2076.4 4+337.¢ 292%.)
WARE secceceet 3565 %.3 39.1 22 30 317 30126.2 4+033.3 ieee. .8
us eves! § 9565 $3.7 65.2 32 33 * 1+786.7 1+757.2 2+161.0
MEWTOM. sees! SO.% $4.9 62.6 35 32 Jo 1955.3 4432.3 20315.2
seweeet 37.1 7.1 “,7 » 33 33 1269.5 4+232.3 Le#Si.3
PULASALsceeet $9.2 O46) 711.7 33 32 1” 2202.0 2066.2 2+62).7
STARKE. .cncet 31.6 29.0 %.3 a 20 26 7S. $727.46 677.4
WHiT... eect .7 66.6 100.2 aT} 3% Ph 3+566.5 3162.5 3+943.2
TOTAL eseet $45.1 $20.2 $96.0 3.3 32.8 30.7 16+723.0 17,0S¢.3 21+685.6
'
2. CAMAOLL . coset $3.6 “8.0 $7.3 *1 37 38 2+1 76.8 1+795.9 2+198.6
CABScceceeee! $0.7 43.9 35.2 9 s 9 1+983.7 4.$97.3 20172.3
CLAHART cceet Jeb 30.7 30.9 3) 32 pho Tetdl.d 972.7 1+279.6
FATOMcceeet &1.8 37.6 *e.1 3) 30 ot le 3 heoll3.2 1eS13.6
«OSC! eoet $2.1 «7.5 $7.2 32 Jo Je L+677.3 1+466.3 1+969.7
MARGAA RL ceeet §42.7 37.9 «3.9 2 29 4 1+22¢.6 beh 22.4 1+$35.6
MEAM nceeeset 63.3 #1.0 «7.5 “<¢ 32 3s 1+@17.3 10240.0 1 +@62.¢
st. oot 3Se2 31.7 34.8 33 33 ot L+lS6e6 1-037.) 1+297.9
WABASH. .cceet $3.8 $0.6 06.2 Je phy “@ LeOeSei 1+706.3 2+426.3
' .
TOT Mi nccet 009.8 376.9 «3.1 38.3 32.6 36.3 14e474,7 12-031.5 14+673.8
‘
3. eee | 44.0 99.7 70.5 2e » »* 1+732.6 2.00.5 227.6
MAEM eseceeet 65-9 b0.6 93.2 32 32 “ 2+795S.6 2057.3 3eS7661
OL KALbeeeest *1.46 37.7 *3.0 27 27 30 1+133.2 904.7 0269.2
MUNTINGTON..! 68.6 03.9 16.2 oh 32 7 2+Jee.3 4057.7 2666.8
LAGRANGE sees! §13.7 tl. 13.7 30 31 36 *13.9 355.3 «96.7
WOW ceceest 29.7 25.9 Ji.) 29 32 35 667.9 020.6 beicl.s
Cvetn. 10.7 12.6 26 26 3s 334.4 2%.6 +6.)
73.0 67.1 eto ato “ 2657.2 2+502.4 32.0
4.9 *4.9 jo 29 Je 1+262.9 deblied i+S35.6
'
TOTM sees? 639.9 #01.6 *73.3 30.7 31.7 4.0 12+$12.0 12+734,4 17+063.6
'
OPC ATescesecet eS. ied *7.1 36 19 33 1+618.9 46997.) 1+S29.2
$3.7 65.2 ye 36 29 1+999.2 46982. 1-600.)
76S 79.0 de 38 7 Z1OTeoe 2+594.4 2,953.5
13.2 15.7 32 DI 33 *$7.6 “06.5 $09.7
36.3 1.7 i “ 38 1+370.7 4+22¢.3 1+600.0
26.9 #6.) 29 » 3s 1263.8 1+373.9 1+639.9
eS. 60.1 38 Bh 7 271561 2+261.9 2+994.6
VERMILLION. 25.1 2161 25.2 hi #1 a7 763.2 65e.4 942.1
VID seccceeet Mel 3361 39.1 3 2 33 1+1606.9 942.8 1+209.5
WARREN cceeet 60.9 $5.7 67.7 3 36 16 2+322.5 2.025.1 2+597.6
t
TOTAL cect &70.6 «23.9 SeT.i *,8 35.9 3$.3 l4e37lee 19+236.2 17+696.6
‘
S. BARTHCLOMEW.: 36.2 31.9 37.3 2 30 Je 950.2 941.9 1266.6
BOONE nceeeeet O652 34.5 70.3 38 Bb) “0 2641665 2+035.8 2.635.7
CREIMTOMceeet Piel 90.6 70.3 29 #1 «) 2+744,7 26655.) 3+063.2
OLCATIM. cone! 7 31.6 36.6 Py “$s 34 1+202.3 1+#20.6 Leeei.t
AAT csceeet 70.9 66.8 76.9 7 “ wn 2+594.5 2269.9 3+10%.0
MAMILTOMss. +t Gone $3.7 61.2 36 Jo ar) 2+122.9 14962. 20348.2
WAMTEOCK ceeeet $2.7 «7.0 $6.0 de 37 a7 1+905.4 1+7S7.6 2-106.
MEMOAICKS..61 Sled «5.7 36.4 “0 «3 2 2+020.7 1+944.4 2+366.90
POUAAD oc eeeet $2.2 “6.6 56.6 *) Je ” 2022344 1,a42.7 26219.5
JSOMMGOM oe ceeet 3366 29.6 35.2 30 7 ie 1015-1 bells. tei??.s
ACIS Me ceeet 70.0 61.3 o7.6 3s pt do 2e~01.5 2104.2 2e400.8
WARTONscseeet 2262 19.0 24.9 de 22 2 17. 6062.0 753.6
PURGE sceeet 39-0 27.2 dle 27 3s hi AIT.d 96.5 957.7
MUG cecceest S769 $3.2 o.1 “0 «2 «3 2+2%4.1 2+210.5 2+77%.8
SOELGVeceeeet Sbe2 $0.6 60.6 » pL) 3” 1+492.7 4+926.6 2+26%.0
TIPTON. seewet 49.3 *5.5 $2.3 an” pL) «3 1+929.0 164.3 2+20+.0
‘
TOTAL coset 609.6 T3162 662.6 36.2 37.2 36-9 296343.9 27+223.8 33-527.
'
o. OW 4caroao...' 20.0 23.1 29.5 20 31 4 e74.1 7az.2 b+0e6.6
OCLawah€....t $9.0 22.0 $¥.? Ss vu 7 2+033.8 b+039.2 2+22068
FAYETIC. cena! 17.9 is.¢ 19.6 3) 37 6 $65.1 $4.6 6%i.e
MEMO. cc eeeet $7.2 6.6 $5.0 3s 36 P) 1600.7 46$73.2 1+9e8.0
PAV ececccees! O65% 36. o9.7 aT) 2s 26 2+0346.9 1 +aS@.0 1+762.9
a eoeet 62.3 73.7 40.9 ”% 1 33 2+653.2 2+296.4 2760.1
WHION oc ecweet 14.7 41.4 16.2 do «2 36 S2e.2 *%4.< Se-.8
Ty seeereeet 35.0 26. 33.4 30 313 a 1+0S7.6 945.7 eiSO.)
'
TOTAL sees! 356.5 313.9 301.6 33.0 31.3 33.5 LL+T?8.« 9784.1 120107.7
:
—92—
Table il, SOVOE ANS: ACPEAGE>s YIELO 460 PRODUCTION BY COUNTIES. INOLANA+
LY7S aNO 1976 PEVISEDs AND LOTT PRELIMINARY
, : ACHES MAAVESTEO ' YIELO PE® acae ' auOOuUCT ION
OIsT. COunTY .
$ 1078 ¢. 107% 8 L077 8 3078 ¢ 1078 8 1077 3 1978 8 070. 8 1077
—"TrOUSANO ACHES = Sbusrels = ="Trou :
Te OAVIESS.-ee-t 30-8 26.2 33.9 3 BT 1+006.48 1,063.9 tel34.0
oveo ' 9.9 11.8 2 31 26 3346.4 206.5 325.1
3.0 $3.6 Be] a’ 7 LeT3761 1eS76.8 7+003.%
22. 27.7 36 1s Phy 904.4 779.5 920.6
KNOB cceseeet 9.45 *2.9 $2.1 32 oo) oh 1+369.0 0693.6 L+79%.9
MORTINescesel 6.2 3.2 3.8 27 29 33 112.3 92.5 l23.<
OTR Cceseceeet 2063 le.4 20.1 26 33 2s $22.6 Sitet 696.6
POSEY accceet S762 41.7 $2.8 Pl) on “0 Le776.6 Lea29.5 2+129.8
seeeet &1,9 37.8 42.3 29 32 31 1+203.6 1+20\.6 1+290.1
“PGULL 1VANee eet 4066 37.3 *6.0 30 319 33- 1+200.5 beeS3.1 1493.5
v ot 26.7 23.1 26.4 30 32 38 793.6 731-9 1+10S.0
“WARRICK.coeet 26.8 20.6 21.3 2 32 4~- 796.8 etu.i 1+106.6
:
VOTE cccet 377.0 332.3 #64,2 31.7 33.2 3.5 11090.) 1ie71'.9 15+926.«
Be GROW. .ceseet te) 1.0 1.1 33 a 33 36.0 31.2 $.7
CHAUFORO. «20! 2.2 2.0 2.2 2? 30 29 56.6 $9.2 02.4
FYOVS «cceeest 1.9 4? 1.9 20 7 23 37.6 a9 e508
MARA ISOM. 6.0! 9.9 4.7 9.6 1” 27 30 1446.) 215.9 262.3
ASACKION ee eeet Bel 29.2 33.4 22 33 33 72\.3 97T°.4 lel3C.e
LAWRENCE. «40! 6.3 7.2 4.9 22 26 27 160.9 17¢.e 236.*
eeeeeet *.4 *.3 $.2 31 30 32 13<.7 12¢.0 163.7
OM ANGE so eeeee! 7. $e: 4.3 2s 27 3o 140.9 135.2 iot.?
PERRY. nc eeeet 6.7 *.? 5.7 2s 27 2 169.3 132.3 142.6
WASHINGTON..! 13.4 12.1 lees a 26 27 278.7 314.2 262.5
'
TOTAL sees! 08.4 13.5 69.1 22.5 29.1 40.2 16990.) 26194.7 2-060.5
:
Ge CLAMK ec eweeet 1468 11-9 1e.$ 33 Je a2 #6).6 «07.9 *36.5
OEARGORM....! 6.3 $.6 6.6 21 36 3 12662 203.6 201.3
FUANELIMesest 1669 13.8 16.3 we » ” $77.6 670.2 661.5
16.7 17.2 22 30 26 407.9 042.8 «73.8
22.0 26.9 22 34 26 $¢@).% 664.6 741.0
0.9 tel 2. 30 29 29.6 27.1 dle
29.4 %.1 27 32 33 909.8 96.8 1+139%.6
Fel 10.6 22 26 33 252.4 255.2 350.6
*.0 *.5 23 26 30 lle 102.9 132.6
:
TOTAL cess? 132.9 111.4 $33.0 26.1 31.6 31-3 Je@71.* 3+S42.1 #108.
:
‘
STATE ncsccceeeet3630.0 3260.0 3670.0 33.5 34.0 3660 121+605.0 114+520.0 139+320.0
:
x
- Table 12, wUwtee onder: screage. v0.9 * 0 PeooucTICy ay CONT LES IMO LAMas
1473 WLYFe AEViSdO+ amd 1977 Kd I 4 I Nae y
MCAES <anvestoO =: YLELD PCA scne +s pagouer tes
otst. COtunt ¢ , a
5 1979 & (0% § «NNTP 6§ 616% tl (18ers 1775 : \eTe 8 tor?
= TeuS4ey) aCnd§ « ~- SS-EL5 - > TrOUSANO fe pee °
be S697 Me conet loel 4t.? 37 . oJ 2 630.< T}e.3
SPCR 10.7 e.2 =] #2 | eines “$3.0 336.4
" 100? 12.0 «3 “4 «J 666.7 67461 Si2.¢
20.9 21.5 oo 32 30 1021.5 467.6 oud.¢
7.46 4.7 $2 «) 33 “03.3 337.9 » 193-6
l¥ee l«.5 3” 32 je 096.7 o.7.s $44.6
12-5 11.3 _ 16 a9 $Se.3 #91.7 38.0
Tod 5.8 ” 33 31 273.2 233.9 17.9
17.3 13. se 37 $3 433.$ 4e7.2 700.9
133.6 163.3 cad 6.6 *2.3 $-70¢.) ~:965.5 o+050.8
lo? 13.6 $3 i? “ 401.2 632.2 603.3
45.5 14.4 37 ss 4 1+355.4 903.7 606.7
27k 21.8 “a 346 33 Pelee 400.6 Tleed
l4ae3 \e.9 2 1s 37 Tad. 904.6 4.
36.7 z.3 4 pt) 1” 1+203-5 bellé.3 %3.3
AAW Lcceet 16.3 14.0 16.2 oa 31 3s 2.9 . ,7
WAAL eccceeet 18.0 19.3 heel so 37 ss 926.1 727.0 661.3
sf. Pe ee 23.* 23.5 19.4 37 3 32 408.2 409.7 630.6
WABASMecccee! 2342 Mel 26.7 — 4 “$ 1+026.7 1-195.7 1+19S.9
t
TOTaacecet 1064.9 799.6 176.2 «$3.3 33.1 “6.7 6+546.2 7,339.9 | 9936.5
'
De WOMB cccccce! 2.6 26.6 29.3 «7 «i “9 1+296@.¢ 4+142.6 le=S3.6
MAD ccceeet 8069 #i.2- 00.2 «7 «1 3. 16932. 4+793.5 2460.6
Ee FRMdeseset 25.0 23.9 22.3 w 38 ” 99lL.« 994.6 47l.«
mw TINGTUMe.s §=2144) 2361 29.2 «7 i 30 1+406.6 995.1 4+c0S.3
LW aMGteoeet 23.0 @6.2 19.5 0 2% 32 $21.3 499.9 #21.)
“AML eeceeeet 22.1 23.6 19.6 is Ie ia 79.5 743.2 Tei.3
SiLUMEeeeeet 1365 le.3 19.8 36 a 4s ©4323 “6*.) 374.2
*OLideoccoeet 19.6 22.6 26.3 3.C«w «7? * 1006.6 1-0$4.5 4+991.1
WUT eeeee! 2hee 22.2 21.3 e2 ” «) 916.0 nT%.2 9li.e
'
TAT Aeweet Beed 223.3 206.2 “3.3 Jé.6 “-.0 32.7 ¢+480.7 Pollesa
‘
@o LAV eocecccet 1e.8 IS.e 3.1 2 2 oa “23.46 396. $21.5
FMIMTAINeceet 12.7 h3-4 tel sz 2 Se 665.3 344.0 $%¢.6
WUNTOOMERT..t =2h.9 41.2 l4sl «7 32 31 1+020.4 aa7.d ai7.2
vr Srrrrrr rs *.0 7.w 6.6 3% Jo «3 229.5 206.7 2$e.3
PeP4kecoceset Lesl lee? 13.6 aed ra) «7 oS1.7 =74.4 e281
PUT OMe ceseet Leek lee? 13.9 - it «7 Tame h 504.7 699.2
TiM@ECaOh..t Zlee 12.2 i7.@ $2 33 | Lele2.0 794.4 491.
verwILn lO. .s 4.3 v4 T.* =i 37 “9. 382-1 394.8 390.9
WGBesccseset 22.2 21.9 17.6 - w” «4 990.5 $42.6 ALC.
WAbwEMessceet Wied 19.3 15.1 + 3s «4 PL?.a 605.0 TIe.=
‘
TOTAL sess! 197.% leoe.2 13i.t «3.3 32.3 “4,0 7+136.6 $+335.2 9291.5
1
Se dub TwACHEe.t 21.5 22.1 17.9 os) i” “” 971.7 $24.4 919.5
WOM a ccceeet 15.5 loe4 12.9 32 at 3s $li.¥ $93.4 700.2
COINTUMeseeet 1862 15.2 12.1 te ss $5 #-}.1 $34.7 62.
CLCATUMesceet ISel 17.2 le.) ia #1 «7 $73.9 Trted 99.6
POM oeeeeet L36h 43.3 2.0 $3 #1 Se 094.7 549.9 715.4
POMILTOMseset Lbed 19.3 led Se ” $2 o26.7 746.0 8)é.«
MAMCUTA soeeet 16.0 3160 9.4 sa «2 ss $63.3 «n$.7 #94.1
risOnicnsscct 1607 200 AS se 3 “ tee. 708.8 743.3
PHAM ncseeet 1643 12.¢@ 19.0 $3 7 % $94.1 sede? S87.
jeeees! 1360 16.7 11.8 «7 ie «3 ele.2 92.0 963.7
*4O1GO%eeeeet 22.% 23.0 21.5 1 pL) % Leh 7Oe1 o¢.9 LelSé.e
Pu Che cceset 7.3 4-6 6.% so a) $2 Je7.* 343.9 357.1
eeceeet lhe? +? —_ or $i #32. 391.6 42,6
PI cccccedt 27.0 2-3 1%.2 4 *) $- L-tee.k bed4i-3 4+037.3
soeecet 29.1 40.9 22.4% oe 7 <a 1+0S7.6 4+306.3 bei02.2
TIPTOMeceseet 1269 ldo 12.7 3A “ oz 604.2 $*. .
'
TOT a seeet 269,4 "278.4 226.8 4.7 38.1 32.2 L2el7e.$ LeeeOi.? ihe?37.S
'
7. WACAI CAD... 1 7.6 402 *.% _ «1 Cad Jev.Tt 37¢.1 362.2
COL AsbmE sect §=26.0 a7. 42.2 “ «5 se bella-s b-227.35 Ledll.e
FOYE seeet §=—Fad 1Oee 1.0 “8 oT -« bowel #34. 193.6
ee the TTT TT TL wea 14-1 12,4 «7 =Z@ %2 ee;.4 434.2 ae2.3
AV ewcccesest £944 ar.? 17.5 - «1 4 Tele). b+ieS. 793.9%
4 eeeet JOee J3e1 av. $2 a % l+e@2.~ 1-$31.9 b+@*9.0
USM eccwesst S.« 1e.¢@ +3 $1 -S -< 42.7 #AG.0 *#23.%
PAINE cecceest ie, 43.5 bese «3 «3 - oe2.4 eliew 904.3
:
TOTAL seeet 13t.e jeo?,? i2Zi.e 4,7 “3.4 =9.2 4+397.6 e--6).8 $.490.6
, ;
Si
Table 12. “inTE® watt «scrteet. ri 41D PRODUCTION Dy COUNTIES+ (nulana,
. 197s ann iv7a 1S€0+ AMO LOTT PRELIMINAMY
' ACRES nanvesten ' TIELO PER acre ' PRODUCT TOM
OIst. CoOwervy =r » es -_ rT
5.4975 3+ ifm + {O77 + #3079 § #197 ¢ #977 3 1975 t 1976 ’ 1977
~ TwOusseD s0KES ~ - QUSWELS ~- = THOUSAND GUSHELS =
Te OOV1ESS.ceeet 25.3 26.5 149.4 “0 32 *1 1+613.5 A346 406.0
PUG IS.ccccet 9.3 10.6 6.8 3 23 i? 326.4 235.5 16.1
*GIBWMMaccccet WA 33-8 26.6 % “0 1+276.9 1+306.0 LeOSte1
W""ONEEME ceccest 126% 13.6 41.3 30 2 46 369.3 * 606,
PAOResccceeet 37.2 39.7 5.0 2 3° > an 1+$66.4 1eS24.3 1+667.6.
MART IMs csceet i. 1-9 1.7 35- 1 39 64.3 $4.0 40.0
PLE ceceeeeet eo2 3.0 % 3 Je 206.5 201.6 17.2
‘ *1.7 “4.8 “6 33 2 1+7S0.5 \+3%e,7 1304.9
LB62 \*.6 30 23 33 $15.3 Sliel eel
29.9 27.9 *1 ss os 1166.8 1+0S9.7 5+023.7
6.0@ 7. a? 37 “7 241.4 209.3 350.48
7s 6.3 Jo 2 «1 233.7 71163 37.1
234.7 195.5 36.3 32.9 @lel Aste3.6 7.653.$ 4,025.5
6.2 0.2 72 33 38 S.A 6.5 7.
1.4 1.4 33 2 49 $3.9 Sie S+.3
¢.9 0.9 ye 73 » & 30.3 27.2 26.0
1.6 6.5 3? 2s 3s 394.) 269.9 29e.1
1s. 1-7 38 27 a4 “97a 372.1 “2.5
6.3 3.7 Je 23 aA 154.6 101.9 139.9
1.1 1.6 “@ 30 «i *6.1 32.3 “0.8
$3.3 &.1 37 26 “4 207.1 1Sl.6 155.1
«6 3.2 2 23 2? 99.0 GAs 66.7
14.6 Wie? we zs a7 #7665 33+.¢ ©30.9
'
TOT Moeeet 98.32 $7.0 se.3 35.3 23.5 36.2 1+946.6 166S1.9 1661.9
'
Fe LAMM occceeet 6.2 e.6 *$.6 *. 27 32 234.7 175.4 178.6
1.¢ 2. 1.7 33 30 39 $2.2 70.9 6h.0
7.7 7.8 6.3 37 38 so 26¢.7 204.5 313.5
*.3 *.2 3.6 J Jo 3s 150.2 126.0 124.6
AMAT Be eet o.8 7.7 ¢.3 31 27 Vv 204.3 206.7 232.0
WUD sececeeet 6.7 9.7 6.4 2 23 27 16.0 15.9 3.6
RWW. cceeet 13.0 1.1 1\2.¢@ 3) se 1 #33.6 $05.4 $1*%.2
MOTT ceceeet 3.6 3.@ 2.8 2 26 2 103.5 92.2 89.2
Sot tiem amp, ' 1.6 ta 1.4 an 26 ”7 Siel £9.6 $1.4
'
TOT acces! 4453 o4.@ 40.8 33.9 30.6 4.8 1-$67.9 LeST77.6 1983.7
'
'
STATE. cecccceeet 1006.0 1see.@ 1286.6 4.0 46,0 “4.0 @1+600.0 9*-+000.0 $%-400.0
'
RNR SE > ESS AES OBR 1 EME ET
‘
-56--
="
EXHIBIT 20
AFFIDAVIT OF LOYD R. JONES
Loyd R. Jones, being first duly sworn, states:
1. I am employed by the United States Department
of Agriculture as the Executive Director of the
— Stabilization and Conservation Service for
ndiana.
2. As a part of the official duties of the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service which is an agen-
cy funded and operating pursuant to federal law,
records are kept concerning set-aside and diverted
acreage of farmland for which farmers are partially
compensated not to grow grain crops, which set-aside
and diverted acreage can only be used for pasturing
purposes. Such records are under my care, custody and
control as a part of my duties as Executive Director.
3. Attached hereto are two pages which are true and
correct copies of records kept and maintained by the In-
diana State Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service, which in Column No. 9 indicate for each county
within the State of Indiana, the total amount of acreage
set-aside and diverted under this program and on the se-
cond page at the bottom of Column No. 9, the total of the
acreage within the State of Indiana set-aside and
diverted under this program for 1978 was 369,135.6
acres.
4. There were 5.9 million set-aside and diverted
acres nationally in the 1978 Feed Grain and Wheat
Program.
[Dated: March 7, 1979] /s/ LoyD R. JONES
$6
— . ( \ e
| z-tes'ew rt orci OP ag ghed Lacey ypu'ho! A | se OH aye'3! wre | set t} sett pee PEL ceith'T cat eely FI jsaes
ma Wi te ee kik 3 *LL@ yik igTs) SY ETTS GintCkt!) SEER LT ie Ee es U Bid
r 2 = Cr la ej. es ~ MIKE d “
2¥.. 4 27R f* ees . KVATE 2 Beal » “esd Be? "> ae af ee $4 4
ALU i) CTT) ras Phi 5 OS A Wii A TE) Be =: : .
rat a vert : = J eeern Trisv jh conch Fst : = IZIXLD ML nine
ste seteh 24st 7 + ver o*farl 2*v2e A.D: ov.¢ o Tt 2 SAE homens ve e
6A9FA 2 SEs 2-e/ KM. 2 a -. - aD ¢ 7
Gaia bey 0: Oell = = Sree AE - [i*3
Bai 01) = = Beni i Fefeoe | f src 7 AS = = LB i 79
seers MLE 7 =—T S ceet la “WA ee t F 4 27 73519 Pte? fe: ¢ t D
P/IATs ME - | ey? “e Ste tte sn ae = La Tey : Ms ~w
7 arac @ eed: =~ a a e- . ¥-¢ In - - -_ Ce - y
TERF tet 77 9SE = _— * o7is elitl F+an? = - aay 4 »
.eaas | O 2008h = = . 77 ° "hes Fv? ev - . Tests
ran) Ere | 7 - 67 2 ey ST *s =
Vacs, Seats, ovr XE 4A o°t? “$s D
Ahtor) F°2sé =% — FFF Th 2 BT | ae
PE Me OAD - - OUstth| 8607 | 4 oest | OF Fn9 —_
"FRAT os Tt = — ryLiii: Zz} f't68s le e30// =
- Al_ © efel Poy7 UT) ° é 7
Brrr eth OP eeei-E a x (777) Satel v-ese .
@* eet - CO S2hli Zirh | Se rssei ote
Bi7Tti/s mS? /M aT tres | i esis] € isge/
weve sn ey a a2 jeeee ats jv'3 So¢gt e'o9
Terkel Fe Fw - |wsty te ae Lak teed RAIS
o Tithe] oe ache! = oor |osa Tat? | FEAT 9 Aes
ea oor, | 7699 uto? | & e0cs) 5 th
= — | e's & @30/ | £-Pt On Wsarte
> 37 —- $5 °¢b9 eel ft £:07 93) &* soci
* = 6ee's3) Sel Tevse- Cal ©? 3b
z ae Cit LT) iPad ETE Geel F 7!
a. e-es © 2*o. VEL £97 Csr. J ‘vi vs -8* As
oe 9 1°41@e -+ ~¢°@ B*ace fad: 7s the ch 2°29
AI >" y 4m Oe Fal a = = Pewee fi x “A -t4tee | TELE
La ead § GE ITT ~- eer Tia Tia ee CO a
O° lIO7F wo Sess - ,O'sserl ¢ 4 -a 93 F v'ese
PSAs ectv poe: yma 75) Le Re 2 7
STSVE LG s'¥vle Seventy ese Rote UL RSA
PHI rl o'liv?, : - Ftenon| AT LS "Core L-o/Sh
ZIT Ad Oesp tcl west? | J beet | -F Ooge:
ae See S°47e
| EET : T7FhAz
Vere 2 vz biol 7 tier
THis ot exit V's ,
Presser 9 °t. Sh o-3is!
a°ths STOEL At fers
"7s — en ee *evttee
adv — dnt Aa tot
ad. b &
= =
19656" . ROITE ME RASS Siriry ‘ o tenes
rr "se 3s <<? .
~ ff. £9 £°4¢ i ‘eo a ’
PA ELILI! are 2th rit 7 - sas be Pie hf eee
‘yy ¥ 7 2 = —_ TE fa
7 ; 7 io 27) )) oo en : a Lis : 453
rw 2B? tii “s/f - = fs
"ston; zy . ° TES 7] Wwe td
4 enti ee "9s 2:2 = E 573 s
“Shere .£°F$ oF = Sins | b-eSets of 6S Ld
a*s 5 * 649 84-3 it Ys Pe lia - y 4 fc eit |{ Y
é LWT X we _|
4 vires =
Pee fe*BE 57 =
e +s '*¢ rit a
. a : - * 4 2Yr -
“as 4 ey : 2b. ais ty Ja rey
Pa = SAG RF ERA tz O71 OL Fer =
O'bin 7 esse = = ‘rt? 9<Aa/ S*beri -
w~——"P afer o- 1 O°-sy = oS 7 TOCA Fe, Te 79 - th
o7SFItNe = = rr] yal mate RATits =
—TE"Tin ilo m.rt mr ¥z et t 1999 - e
PFET TE Nia = ead tA, bees | F*s§$/b = eorsl
= errr @ Beds] “sr wun reer B*éser - “Yoo
tees ; oasis] Cees 1a bsed = 377)
cone | Orefay | .Te7 E-wtc "o'Jée A-g57 = - SEO/ So te 25th
“T F-ctaek] Sat CATTLE Te I 5) ee eS eh 9 - Ma Fl i& jentt
wiseees, 19.4 TO* PE Gdy bette: J * Aa = Le VC EL4T eA jessie ‘
ocr? al 7s OC 7ECFT Ttoar ¥en] K3el | LF Fh 19 Zante l¥s r
Or eeend] 6. t7 1 lt. t4). thee . €-tbhe ze “ ZIF x) sty “Livia
PF Sevon| SoFF Pu VEK> feo eFe. pri © Vs - = PehneOhTl 695 ? i
F= 77] ter? | ce sdec | © 0s S725 = ae i 51) TEE A0y7
"9b21 7 #27 12° 7_779e | - TG | parvel| F37 Azer eH rE
BIL eee Tat ST ter Fer ht th : 2°'f¢1 14°17 Cb8i StS 4 8th eag/
F9G FN cae - Tish Eu Lest SACs | 2S = ae resi) Mf jeoshti
Te 8a7 Foote 5 = tHe ahs? lA sche Ls PT) Pee = Perit 24 ;
pe ees (5s 8, Ae! Ztenist| Feet (Avie 72 tee | © tre . at he = 4490 vA ?
FITS T- Mien ot? ve Sioreeil -tr97 “Hest h-LIhEL 469 | -5 FF o-¢ e-eroe 46
____ | seven = eee Orr > fw om 4s (TEE FARES CIP aVATS “os ef = -* A ‘hts (71
FT rs me = “EGR CR Ete Ti eche [ae - ccog -$s9 = - 0-42 asi AS/
—T ee ——T easel TT Ire eae = = |9 4257 3
ek ee =" |e sae efas [OTIS be scqhd Cae Pee MEE 7
—"Prerstal « Sn . Witte, [eee WELT Aig ak. - [2° 89s
Tee | 1 rr) ogy, waa ‘PFT. ; ar v “* OTe * . 2°S~e a Ftct “hes
Tie ha —: : rier a5 7i3 cir
Rng: | Mb - Sees “$ ffor &
— wre ere 8 ary ie CTASKE C57 SE er
——T Wid Seis - > .
orf: 4 ct I AO, ae a¢? Rte oan = ssnano
“f
, yeu" ‘y 4 ver * © 2 Ae e
—e-
EXHIBIT 40
REVIEW OF RECLAMATION PLANS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
5610 Crawfordsville Road, Suite 2200, Indianapolis, In-
diana 46224
September 20, 1978
ADVISORY—CONS—IN—13
From: Buell M. Ferguson, State Conservationist
Re: Plan Review for Restoration of Prime Farmland
The Secretary of Agriculture, under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, has assigned
responsibility for providing assistance to state surface
mine regulatory agencies to the Soil Conservation Ser-
vice.
The Soil Conservation Service will receive requests from
the Jasonville office of Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Reclamation Division, to review reclamation
plans for reconstruction of prime farmlands. These re-
quests will be received by field offices in the counties
where mines are located. Field offices will be responsi-
ble for making the review and returning the plans to the
a office of IDNR within 15 days after receiving
them.
The attached procedure is to be used when reviewing
plans for reconstruction of prime farmland. The review
and comments will be limited to the prime farmland
aspects of the plan. It is anticipated that most of these
reviews can be made in the office without field review.
Retain this advisory and the attached procedure until
further notice.
/s/ Buell M. Ferguson
State Conservationist
Attachment
—99—
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING PLANS FOR
THE RESTORATION
OF PRIME FARMLAND (PL-95-87)
To adequately review a plan it must contain the
necessary items to evaluate the reconstruction of prime
farmland. The review will be made on plan content only,
without any assumptions as to the operator’s intent. The
review and comments will be limited to the prime
farmland aspects of the plan. If it cannot be determined
by reviewing the plan that these items are adequate, it
should be so stated in the comments.
The following is a list of items that need to be checked
on each plan:
1. When stockpiling of soil horizons is necessary to ac-
complish soil reconstruction separate stockpiles will
be needed for A horizon soil material and for the
mixed B and C horizon soil material, or for other
suitable plant growth material. A separate stockpile
area will be needed for the C horizon soil material if
this material would adversely affect the productivity
of the soil or if separate handling of the C horizon
would enhance productivity.
2. Where it is found that a particular horizon or com-
bination of horizons or field identifiable units have
the best potential of enhancing post-mining produc-
ayy. that unit or horizon shall be saved and
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.