WYOMING COUNTY, W.Va (WOAY) – After months of community sampling and research, two citizen groups filed 60-day notices of intent to sue over mine discharges at Kopperston and Lynco.
“These are both specifically Clean Water Act lawsuits. We are alleging violations of the Clean Water Act for violations of water quality standards,” Appalachian Voices scientist Matt Hepler said.
One notice alleges an unpermitted discharge of acid mine drainage (AMD) near Kopperston; the other alleges at least 186 Clean Water Act (CWA) violations at a Lexington Coal operation near Lynco.
“These are unlawful not just under West Virginia laws and rules, but under federal law as well. Specifically, the Clean Water Act and, Surface Mining Reclamation and Control Act. In both sites, what we’re seeing is a discharge of what’s commonly referred to as acid mine drainage. That includes both a low pH indicates an acidic discharge,” said Mike Becher, an attorney with Appalachian Mountain Advocates.
The letters were sent on Aug. 29, 2025, starting a 60-day clock to fix the alleged violations or face litigation under the CWA and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA).
“The 60-day notice is something that’s required under environmental laws like the Clean Water Act and the Surface Mining Reclamation Control Act. It gives both regulators and companies, the violators themselves, a chance to step in and fix the problem and try to address the issues,” Becher said.
If the lawsuit is filed, it will be filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, no earlier than Oct. 29.
What the Filings Allege
“All these sites have lower. P.H. so and higher sulfates. In addition, there’s metals leaching into the water. Both of them had really high levels of aluminum and iron, and one of them had high levels of manganese. Both of those are fairly common pollutants that are often associated with mining, particularly iron and manganese, but aluminum is not super uncommon either.” Hepler said.
Kopperston
“The Kopperston number one site, we believe, is an unpermitted discharge of acid mine drainage. Discharge goes from the coal mine into Toney Fork, which is a tributary of the Clear Fork and the Guyandotte River,” Becher said.
The lawsuit alleges that Rockwell Mining, owner of the Kopperston #1 site, has violated and continues to violate the Clean Water Act as well as the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
The NOI describes a concrete box-like structure beside Kopperston Road (Lat. 37.775944, Long. -81.540411) that is discharging into Toney Fork of the Clear Fork/Guyandotte River system. The discharge is visibly staining the surrounding area and flows along the road for over 100 yards.
Sampling on June 24, 2025, returned a pH of 4.7, elevated aluminum (5.42 mg/L), iron (2.78 mg/L), selenium (estimated 2.0 mg/L), and manganese (0.710 mg/L). The letter asserts that this is consistent with AMD and that no required signage for an NPDES outlet was present at the sampling location.
“It’s fairly obvious that some kind of pollution is coming from there because there is significant staining for at least 100 or more yards downstream of that structure. Our testing confirmed in our minds that pollutants are there, and it’s consistent with the discharges of a mining operation,” Becher said.
Kopperston NOI (as sent)Lynco (NPDES: WV0056693)
“So, the Lexington site is a bit different, rather than an unpermitted discharge. They do have a Clean Water Act permit, but our research shows they’ve not been complying with the pollution limits on that permit for some time,” Becher said.
The lawsuit alleges that Lexington Coal Company, owner of the #5 site, has violated and continues to violate the Clean Water Act as well as the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
According to the notice’s appendix and company discharge monitoring reports on file with WVDEP, there have been at least 186 violations of the Clean Water Act since Oct. 2021.
The filing cites heavy metal exceedances as well as extremely low pH values. The outfalls flow into Road Branch, which empties into the Guyandotte River. The notice also states that the WVDEP has listed both Road Branch and Clear Fork as impaired.
The Lynco facility is associated with Lexington Coal Mine #5 under NPDES permit WV0056693, and SMCRA permits D006982, O017483, U058900, and U060500. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Detailed Facility Report (DFR) shows the site has Significant/Category I Noncompliance with Clean Water Act requirements in the last 12/12 quarters as of March 31, 2025.
“The DEP has been testing the water over in Lynco since 2021 that we know of, and it’s been in clear violation of the Clean Water Act. So we brought in the attorneys. We tested it. We did the research, and now it’s come to a head,” said Richard Altizer, a community advocate.
Lycno NOI (as sent)Where the Water Goes and Why it Matters
The Kopperston discharge flows into Toney Fork, then Clear Fork, ultimately ending up in the Guyandotte River.
“We just want people to understand why we did what we did. It was never about the coal industry and never about coal jobs, I want to be able to see a kid go down there and get in a creek and not come out with a rash,” Altizer said.
The Lynco discharge flows into Road Branch, then the Guyandotte River. Earlier this year, West Virginia Rivers senior scientist Than Hitt said the Guyandotte River is used as a source for the local drinking water supply.
A 2025 study reported that two Wyoming County public water systems had the highest number of drinking-water violations recorded for any single system during the study period.
Both the Clear Fork, and the Guyandotte River are listed as critical habitat for the federally endangered Guyandotte River Crayfish.
“At these levels, there are negative impacts to the small streams where the discharge is going in directly, and certainly, the aquatic life will be negatively impacted by the pollutants that we’re seeing here,” Hepler said.
The Endangered Species Act, enacted in 1973, states that agencies and companies must “Ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species.”
Advocates say the goal is compliance, not closures.
“These water quality problems, particularly from these things that we dubbed zombie mines, are going to be more and more of an issue in the future if mines do not stay on top of their kind of long-term water quality issues,” Hepler said. “We really want these mines to clean up their act so folks have healthy streams, healthy drinking water, and just healthy communities.”
What Happens Next
The notices were mailed on Aug. 29, 2025. Under federal law, the companies have until Oct. 28 to prove abatement; if nothing is done, the lawsuits can be filed on Oct. 29.
For advocates like Richard Altizer, the NOIs are exactly what he has been fighting for.
“We went through a lot trying to get money to test. We gave out water. I’ve given out probably 800,000 bottles of water in the last two years, and for people with rashes, it comes to an end today,” Altizer said.
Others want to see this information come to light and encourage residents to say something if they see something.
“I think that residents should be vocal about the problems they’re seeing. They should let the regulators and the groups bringing these lawsuits know. Because the laws are in place to protect the people and their waterways, their drinking water. It’s when communities come together, when people get involved, that we see those problems find a solution down the road,” Becher said.
Newswatch has reached out to the WVDEP about the matter, and due to the WVDEP not being a party to the NOI’s, they had no comment.
