William C. Haneberg

William C. Haneberg, LLC

2026 Edward Burwell, Jr. Award

William C. Haneberg’s “Precipitation Patterns, Mountaintop Removal Mining, and the July 2022 North Fork Kentucky River Flood” is a highly deserving recipient of the Geological Society of America Environmental and Engineering Geology Division’s Burwell Award. Selected by the co-editors of Environmental & Engineering Geoscience as the journal’s 2025 Best Paper, this study exemplifies the excellence, innovation, and societal relevance the Burwell Award seeks to recognize.

The paper addresses one of the most destructive natural disasters in recent Appalachian history: the catastrophic July 2022 eastern Kentucky floods that claimed 45 lives, damaged thousands of homes, and triggered widespread landsliding. Haneberg combines hydrology, geomorphology, GIS, remote sensing, and engineering geology to investigate the causes and impacts of this event using publicly available data and reproducible analytical methods.

A particular strength of the paper is its objective treatment of the long-debated relationship between mountaintop removal mining and flood severity. Rather than advancing a predetermined conclusion, Haneberg develops and calibrates innovative watershed-scale models that integrate high-resolution lidar topography, spatially variable precipitation patterns, and streamflow observations. His analysis demonstrates that both extreme rainfall and mining-related landscape alteration influenced flood behavior and that their relative contributions can be quantitatively assessed.

The study provides critical insight into why Troublesome Creek experienced disproportionately severe impacts during the flood. By demonstrating that the watershed contributed an outsized share of cumulative flood discharge relative to its area, the paper links localized rainfall patterns and watershed disturbance to observed damage and loss of life. These findings advance scientific understanding while offering practical guidance for hazard assessment, mitigation planning, and community resilience in Appalachian coalfield regions.

Beyond its technical contributions, the paper exemplifies the public value of environmental and engineering geology. It transforms a complex and politically sensitive issue into a transparent, evidence-based analysis that informs scientists, decision-makers, and the public alike. Through its originality, methodological rigor, interdisciplinary scope, and direct relevance to societal challenges, this paper stands as an outstanding contribution to applied geoscience and a worthy recipient of the GSA Environmental and Engineering Geology Division Burwell Award.

Eric’s citation is humbling. It’s a bittersweet honor to receive the Burwell award for a paper I wish I’d never had a reason to write.

During a terrible week in July 2022, rain fell over parts of Appalachia as it may not have fallen in a thousand years. To borrow a phrase from Kentucky author Silas House, “All the creeks conspired to the raging river.”

Forty-five people died. Children as young as 2 and seniors as old as 97 and disproportionately people living along a stream named Troublesome Creek. It was not a coincidence. The Troublesome Creek watershed received some of the heaviest rainfall of the storm and 25 percent of its area had been scarred by surface coal mining over the years.

I can’t imagine the terror of raging water rising swiftly through the moonless night and into the morning; of hoping and praying and, for some, ultimately realizing there would be no way out.

As the water receded, people began asking whether mountaintop removal mining had made the flood worse. As Kentucky’s state geologist and director of the Kentucky Geological Survey at the time, I felt an obligation to offer something better than the standard industry claim that mining caused no harm and, besides, Appalachia has suffered floods since the time of Noah.

My results showed that Appalachian mountaintop removal mining likely exacerbates the severity of large floods. More recent research by others at KGS has shown the same.

Events like the Kentucky flood raise an important ethical question: What do we do when emerging research suggests practices we’ve advocated, implemented, or profited from cause societal harm disproportionate to their benefits? Do we ignore the science? Argue that the results are just models and pedantically mansplain dubious benefits? Or do we stop to reconsider what we’re doing, evaluate alternatives, and change course if that’s where the facts take us?

Many of us tie our financial security and even our identities to our work. We might avoid saying things that could cost us our jobs or otherwise hinder our careers. Lessons that seemed so obvious during ethics training—which some states require to maintain geology licensure—can too easily become secondary considerations.

I cannot tell you what the answer is. I can, however, tell you that it is important to ask. To reflect. To respond consciously, morally, and ethically.

At about the same time my paper was published, the Kentucky coal industry was lobbying its state legislature to weaken—not strengthen—watershed protections. One of the goals was to make mountaintop removal mining easier. Valid concerns about downstream risks were dismissed. The industry did not pause to reconsider or ask whether it could be raising the bar instead of lowering it. It moved ahead at full speed, leveraging its political influence to have the state legislature override a gubernatorial veto and enact a bill that weakened watershed protections.

A mining engineer who has profited from the practice once told me he thinks that mountaintop removal mines reduce flood severity. That they’re good things.

Those who died along Troublesome Creek may have begged to differ.