West Virginia coal interests must have sighed in relief last week, thankful that Gov. Joe Manchin's administration signed on as a friend of the court to oppose two federal court rulings that would impose greater controls over mountaintop mining.

Coal company executives have said repeatedly the federal rulings would curtail coal production in southern West Virginia -- production that generates hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars each year in payroll and millions in severance taxes and sales taxes.

According to press reports, the Manchin administration's "friend-of-the-court" briefs prompted the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition to respond that state officials did not raise their concerns when Judge Robert C. "Chuck" Chambers was hearing the case. We'll see how that goes.

The Manchin administration correctly argued that West Virginia mining operators have been producing coal under the existing statutes for decades. It points out that West Virginia operators are forced to meet tougher federal standards than operators in other states, and those barriers are certain to cut into production.

While coal companies fight to do business in West Virginia, they also are keeping their eye on still another challenge -- this one coming from Washington.

Coal companies nationally have worked to comply with the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, also known as the MINER Act, which came in the aftermath of the Sago and Aracoma tragedies and was billed as the most significant mine safety legislation in 30 years.

Now Congress is working on additional mine safety legislation -- the S-MINER Act (H.R. 2768) -- that many in the industry see as impractical and unnecessary.

Industry insiders say they are proud of the advances they have made to improve mine safety, and they believe the new legislation conflicts with the objectives of the 2006 legislation.

One industry source said California Congressman George Miller, who chairs the House Committee on Education and Labor, is championing the legislation and doesn't seem too interested in hearing from experts who understand mining, safety and the improvements that have been made.

• • •

I had a brief exchange the other day with a loyal coal industry ally, who marvels that federal courts in West Virginia continue to give comfort to those who want to see the coal industry disappear.

In the days after Dow Chemical announced it is downsizing its South Charleston research and development operation, he wrote: "It would sure be a tragedy for a weakened and diminished coal industry to go the way of our chemical industry. ... It's possible. West Virginia must decide if we are to participate in the greatest energy boom and need in our lifetime or sit this one out on the bench."

I've said it before. I'll say it again: The coal industry is under siege on virtually every front. As a result, major companies have pulled back here. Investments are slow in coming.

As some contemplate the possibility of a smaller coal industry in West Virginia, are we adequately preparing for the state's economic future? Are we embracing policy changes that will encourage investments that would diversify the economy? Are we modernizing our tax code? Are we striving to make government more efficient and less costly? Are we doing enough to make sure our judicial system has a reputation for fairness?

The policies that give momentum to the economies of surrounding states could work here.

• • •

Senior staff writer Beth Gorczyca Ryan this week examined the way West Virginia has set up its House of Delegates districts.

While Ryan didn't hear from as many incumbent legislators as she would have liked, state Democratic Party Chairman Nick Casey was kind enough to respond to her questions. He made a good point: While the seven-member 30th House District in Kanawha County is made up of all Democrats, the three-member 32nd House District -- also in Kanawha County -- is made up of all Republicans.

Good point.

The question centers on good government: Do multiple-delegate districts lead to the best possible government? And if they are so good, why wouldn't we create even more multiple-delegate districts? Why wouldn't we combine the state's 36 single-delegate districts into multiple-delegate districts?

I suppose we could debate this issue forever, but I've seen some curious results within multiple-delegate districts -- results that cannot necessarily be attributed to a candidate's incumbency. Single-delegate districts make sense to me.

Dan Page is editor and publisher of The State Journal. His e-mail address is dpage@statejournal.com.