U.S. v. CB & I Constructors, Inc.

Jun 29: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 10-55371. Appealed from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. According to the Appeals Court, defendant CB&I Constructors, Inc., (CB&I) negligently caused a June 2002 wildfire that burned roughly 18,000 acres of the Angeles National Forest in Southern California. The United States brought a civil action against CB&I to recover damages for harm caused by the fire. CB&I does not contest its liability or the jury's award of roughly $7.6 million in fire suppression, emergency mitigation, and resource protection costs. It challenges only the jury's additional award of $28.8 million in "intangible environmental damages."

 

    The district court denied CB&I's motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial or remittitur, concluding that under California law the government could recover damages for all of the harm caused by the fire, including intangible harm to the environment. The district court "held that the government provided sufficient evidence for the jury to determine the amount of environmental damages, and that the resulting award was not grossly excessive." The appeals Court affirmed the district court decision.

 

    In calculating the intangible harm, the jury also awarded the government an additional $28.8 million or $1,600 per acre of burned National Forest land. The Appeals Court indicated that CB&I and Amici argue that the government may not recover intangible environmental damages because noneconomic damages are not recoverable in negligence suits regarding harm to real property. However, the Appeals Court said, "CB&I and Amici err by relying on cases that merely limit damages for emotional distress or suffering. . . In sum, we see nothing in California law that prevents the federal government from recovering intangible, noneconomic environmental damages for a negligently set fire."

 

    Regarding the intangible harm, the government did not provide testimony on a specific dollar amount, but did provide testimony concerning the "extensive destruction and harm to animal habitats, soils, and plant life. This testimony included the harm caused by the fire to the endangered California red-legged frog and the destruction of the historic Hazel Dell mining camp." The Appeals Court said it agreed with the district court that the trial provided sufficient evidence for the jurors to quantify the intangible environmental harm.

 

    The Appeals Court said, "Given the scope of the environmental harm caused by the Copper Fire, we agree with the district court that the jury's damage award of $1,600 per acre was not grossly excessive or against the clear weight of the evidence. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying CB&I's motion for a new trial or remittitur."

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here). [#Land, #CA9]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Snoqualmie Valley Preservation Alliance v. U.S. Army Corps

Jun 26: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-35459. Appealed from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Appeals Court explains that Puget Sound Energy (PSE) maintains and operates a hydroelectric power plant at the 268-foot-high Snoqualmie Falls in the State of Washington. The Snoqualmie River drains a large watershed above the falls, and all of the water from this area must pass through a single narrow channel before it reaches the falls, creating a bottleneck during heavy rains. This subjects the City of Snoqualmie, located just upstream of the falls, to persistent and significant flooding.

 

    In the process of upgrading and modifying the plant, PSE plans to lower the dam located in the channel above the falls in order to mitigate these upstream flooding problems. PSE has already obtained a license for the project from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Because the upgrade involves discharging fill material into the waters of the United States, which is prohibited under the Clean Water Act (CWA) without a permit, PSE sought verification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that it could proceed under a series of general nationwide permits (NWPs) authorizing certain discharges, rather than applying to the Corps for an individual permit.

 

    The Corps verified that it could. Downstream property owners formed the Snoqualmie Valley Preservation Alliance (Alliance) to challenge this decision, which they contend will exacerbate flooding problems below the falls. The district court granted summary judgment for the Corps and the Appeals Court affirm the district court decision.

 

    The Alliance challenged a Verification Letter as inadequate, however, the Appeals Court said, "The Verification Letter at issue here does state reasons for the action taken: the agency verified that PSE could proceed under section 404 of the CWA because the project had minimal individual and cumulative impacts and it complied with all terms and conditions of NWPs 3, 33, and 39. This conclusion is amply supported by facts in the administrative record. To require more would be contrary to the regulatory scheme, which devised the system of general nationwide permits to streamline the process, reduce redundancy, and conserve agency resources."

 

    The Appeals Court also responded to a NEPA challenge saying, "The Alliance bases its NEPA claim on the argument that the Corps was required by the CWA to inform PSE that it could not proceed under general nationwide permits, but instead must apply for an individual permit. However, because the Corps did not violate the CWA, it also did not violate NEPA. Verifying that permittees may properly proceed under a nationwide permit does not require a full NEPA analysis at the time of the verification."

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here). [#Water, #Energy/Hydro, #CA9]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professional

GOP & Industry Groups Say GHG Decision Is "Devastating Blow"

Jun 27: As WIMS reported yesterday the unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit in the case of Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. U.S. EPA, and related consolidated cases upholding EPA authority to regulated greenhouse gases (GHG) under the Clean Air Act [See WIMS 6/26/12] was widely applauded by Democratic leaders and environmental organizations. Reactions from Republican leaders and industry groups were not available at press time. The following reactions of Michigan's Representative Fred Upton, Senator Inhofe and the industry coalition involved in the lawsuits were released later in the day.

 

    House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) issued a statement in response to the ruling saying, "While some in Washington may claim today's court ruling is a win for the Obama administration, it delivers a devastating blow to the U.S. economy and American consumers. After enduring 40 consecutive months of higher than eight percent unemployment, we cannot afford the EPA's continued expansion of red tape that is slowing economic growth and threatening to entangle millions of small businesses. EPA's rules will impose billions of dollars in compliance and delay costs and represent an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that has the potential to affect virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household. We have a legislative solution that stands up for American workers. The House passed my bill, H.R.910, to stop this power-grab by the Obama administration and block EPA's cap-and-trade agenda that threatens to drive energy prices higher, destroy jobs, and hamstring our economic recovery.

   

    Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and a major critic of the Administration's GHG regulations and climate change science commented the decision saying, "This 'big win' for the Obama EPA is a huge loss for every American, especially those in the heartland states which rely on fossil fuel development and the affordable energy that comes with it. EPA's massive and complicated regulatory barrage will continue to punish job creators and further undermine our economy. This is the true agenda that President Obama is trying to hide under disingenuous reelection rhetoric about an 'all of the above' approach to energy.

    "And what will Americans get in return for this regulatory nightmare? Even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that these rules will have no effect on the climate so it will be all pain for no environmental gain. Today's court ruling should be a wake-up call for the United States Senate to do its job and prevent what an author of the Clean Air Act amendments, Representative Dingell, called a 'glorious mess.' Last year 64 Senators went on record as wanting to stop these devastating greenhouse gas regulations from taking effect -- it's time they actually do so."

    "The Obama administration is attempting to regulate greenhouse gases in the absence of legislation. Congress and the American people rejected cap-and-trade legislation, but unelected bureaucrats at the EPA are pushing through harmful regulations that will serve as a massive energy tax on American businesses and families. H.R.910 will reassert Congress' authority to direct public policy and will protect Americans from EPA's overreach."

    National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President and CEO Jay Timmons released a statement on behalf of the industry coalition on the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit saying, "Today's ruling is a setback for businesses facing damaging regulations from the EPA. The Clean Air Act was not designed to regulate greenhouse gases, and even the EPA said that it could not comply with the statute as written to implement these regulations.

    "The EPA's decision to move forward with these regulations is one of the most costly, complex and burdensome regulations facing manufacturers. These regulations will harm their ability to hire, invest and grow. By moving forward, the EPA is adding to the mounting uncertainty facing manufacturers of all sizes. We will be considering all of our legal options when it comes to halting these devastating regulations. The debate to address climate change should take place in the U.S. Congress and should foster economic growth and job creation, not impose additional burdens on businesses."

    In a release, NAM said it is "reviewing the court's decision and will consider further legal options on appeal. The EPA's greenhouse gas regulations will eventually require new burdensome permitting requirements for more than 6 million stationary sources, including 200,000 manufacturing facilities, 37,000 farms and millions of other sources such as universities, schools, hospitals and even American homes -- impacting every aspect of our economy."

    The members of the coalition include American Frozen Food Institute; American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers; American Petroleum Institute; Brick Industry Association; Copper & Brass Fabricators Council, Inc.; Corn Refiners Association; Glass Association of North America; Glass Packaging Institute; Independent Petroleum Association of America; Indiana Cast Metals Association; Michigan Manufacturers Association; Mississippi Manufacturers Association; National Association of Home Builders; National Association of Manufacturers; National Oilseed Processors Association; NFIB Small Business Legal Center; North American Die Casting Association; Specialty Steel Industry of North America; Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry; Western States Petroleum Association; West Virginia Manufacturers Association; and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce.

    Access the statement from Rep. Upton (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Inhofe (click here). Access the NAM release (click here). Access the complete opinion (click here). [#Climate, #Air, #MIAir, #MIClimate, #CADC]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Building Industry Association of WA v. WA State Bldg Code

Jun 25: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-35207. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Appeals Court explains that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), establishes nationwide energy efficiency standards for certain residential home appliances, and expressly preempts state standards requiring greater efficiency than the Federal standards. It nonetheless exempts from preemption state building codes promoting energy efficiency, so long as those codes meet certain statutory conditions. This case is a challenge to the State of Washington's Building Code brought by the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), along with individual builders and contractors.

 

   The impetus for the challenge is the State's 2009 requirement that new building construction meet heightened energy conservation goals. This is the first case at the appellate level to consider EPCA's preemption-exemption provision. Plaintiffs-

Appellants (Plaintiffs) argue that the Building Code does not satisfy EPCA's conditions for exemption. The district court, however, held that Washington had satisfied EPCA's conditions, and therefore was not preempted. The Appeals Court affirmed the district court decision and explains that to escape preemption, a state's building code must satisfy the seven conditions codified in 42 U.S.C. § 6297(f)(3). The two at issue here are § 6297(f)(3)(B) and (C).

 

    Under subsection (B), a state's building code cannot require a covered product -- energy consuming fixtures such as water heaters and refrigerators -- to be more efficient than the standards established by the United States Department of Energy

(DOE"). The State of Washington's Building Code requires builders to reduce a building's energy use by a certain amount, and provides a number of options from which a builder may choose how to meet that requirement. Some of the options involve the installation of products that have an efficiency that exceeds the federal standards. These options, according to the builders, also happen to be cheaper than the other options. The builders contend that they are therefore being "required" to use products that exceed the Federal standards, in violation of subsection (B).

 

    On the subsection (B) issue the Appeals Court rules, "We hold that a builder is not 'required' to select an option, within the meaning of subsection (B), simply because there is an economic incentive to do so. Section 6297(f)(3)(B) is violated when the code requires a builder, as a matter of law, to select a particular product or option. The Supreme Court has recognized this to be what a requirement entails. See Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 445 (2005) (rejecting a preemption challenge, and holding that the term 'requirement' in a different statute means 'a rule of law that must be obeyed'). Plaintiffs in this case are thus not 'required' to choose the less expensive, more efficient option."

 

    Plaintiffs' also challenge under § 6297(f)(3)(C) of the Federal law which the Appeals Court said "is more factual in nature." Subsection (C) provides that a building code must grant credits on the basis of how much each option reduces energy use or cost, without favoring particular products or methods. Plaintiffs argue that the Building Code here does not satisfy this condition, because they contend its credits are not granted on a one-for-one equivalent energy use basis. The Appeals Court says their argument relies solely upon a BIAW member's declaration. The district court rejected the declaration after finding that the witness was not qualified as an expert to challenge the State's calculations of equivalent energy use savings produced by using particular products or building methods.

 

    The Appeals Court rules, "We hold there was no abuse of discretion in disallowing that evidence. The evidence that is in the record supports the district court's conclusion that the state-assigned credit values satisfy the 'one-for-one equivalent energy use' requirement of subsection (C). . . We therefore hold that the Washington Building Code satisfies the conditions Congress established for enforcement of state and local building codes consistent with federal energy law and we affirm the judgment of the district court in favor of the State."

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here). [#Energy/Efficiency, #CA9]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

State of VT Dept. of Pub. Serv v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Jun 26: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 11-1168 & 11-1177. On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Vermont Department of Public Service (DPS) and the New England Coalition (NEC) petition for review of a decision of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, Commission), issuing to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively, Entergy) a renewed license to operate the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee). The petitioners contend the license renewal was unlawful because Entergy failed to furnish a state Water Quality Certification (WQC) which they assert was required under section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

 

    The Appeals Court ruled, "We conclude the petitioners waived their WQC objection because they repeatedly failed to present it directly to the Commission and thereby failed to exhaust their administrative remedies." Despite the fact that Petitioners had numerous administrative opportunities, which the Appeals Court detailed, the petitioners contend it would have been futile to raise

the section 401 issue before the Commission, which they said, "has clearly held that the issue of whether an applicant possesses a required CWA authorization is not appropriate for consideration as a contention in NRC licensing proceedings." .

 

    The Appeals Court said, "None of the decisions they cite, however, supports their contention the Commission would have refused to decide the issue here, namely, whether an applicant for license renewal has obtained the requisite section 401 WQC before a license issues. . . we conclude that the petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before the Commission and thereby waived the right to raise their section 401 objection on judicial review. Accordingly, we deny their petitions for review."

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here). [#Energy/Nuclear, #CADC]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Appeals Court Rules Unanimously In Favor Of EPA GHG Regulations

Jun 26: Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. U.S. EPA; American Chemistry Council v. U.S. EPA; and various intervenors including the State of Michigan, et al. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 09-1322, consolidated with a number of cases. On Petitions for Review of Final Actions of the Environmental Protection Agency. And, consolidated with dozens of cases and involving hundreds of attorneys. This is a highly controversial, complicated and critically important decision regarding U.S. EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A unanimous Appeals Court has provided an complete ruling in support of U.S. EPA and Administration.

 

    The Appeals Court outlines the history as follows: Following the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) -- which clarified that greenhouse gases are an "air pollutant" subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA) -- U.S. EPA promulgated a series of greenhouse gas-related rules. First, EPA issued an Endangerment Finding, in which it

determined that greenhouse gases may "reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." See 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). Next, it issued the Tailpipe Rule, which set emission standards for cars and light trucks. Finally, EPA determined that the CAA requires major stationary sources of greenhouse gases to obtain construction and operating permits. But because immediate regulation of all such sources would result in overwhelming permitting burdens on permitting authorities and sources, EPA issued the Timing and Tailoring Rules, in which it determined that only the largest stationary sources would initially be subject to permitting requirements.

 

    Petitioners, various states and industry groups, challenge all these rules, arguing that they are based on improper constructions of the CAA and are otherwise arbitrary and capricious. The Appeals Court rules, "But for the reasons set forth below, we conclude: (1) the Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule are neither arbitrary nor capricious; (2) EPA's interpretation of the governing CAA provisions is unambiguously correct; and (3) no petitioner has standing to challenge the Timing and Tailoring Rules. We thus dismiss for lack of jurisdiction all petitions for review of the Timing and Tailoring Rules, and deny the remainder of the petitions."

 

    The Appeals Court explains the organization of the seven part, 82-page decision saying, "This opinion proceeds in several steps. Part II explains why the Endangerment Finding was neither arbitrary nor capricious, while Part III does the same for the Tailpipe Rule. Turning to stationary source regulation, Part IV examines whether any petitioners may timely challenge EPA's longstanding interpretation of the PSD statute. Because we conclude that they may, Part V addresses the merits of their statutory arguments, and explains why EPA's interpretation of the CAA was compelled by the statute. Next, Part VI explains why petitioners lack standing to challenge the Timing and Tailoring Rules themselves. Finally, Part VII disposes of several arguments that have nothing to do with the rules under review, and thus are not properly before us."

 

    On the issue of the scientific basis for the endangerment finding, the Appeals Court said in part, "State and Industry Petitioners next challenge the adequacy of the scientific record underlying the Endangerment Finding, objecting to both the type of evidence upon which EPA relied and EPA's decision to make an Endangerment Finding in light of what Industry Petitioners view as significant scientific uncertainty. Neither objection has merit. . . Based on this scientific record, EPA made the linchpin finding: in its judgment, the 'root cause' of the recently observed climate change is 'very likely' the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. . . EPA had before it substantial record evidence that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases 'very likely' caused warming of the climate over the last several decades. . ."

 

    On the subject of the Endangerment Finding being arbitrary and capricious and "just a "subjective conviction" of EPA, the Appeals Court said in part, "EPA relied on a substantial record of empirical data and scientific evidence, making many specific and often quantitative findings regarding the impacts of greenhouse gases on climate change and the effects of climate change on public health and welfare. Its failure to distill this ocean of evidence into a specific number at which greenhouse gases cause "dangerous" climate change is a function of the precautionary thrust of the CAA and the multivariate and sometimes uncertain nature of climate science, not a sign of arbitrary or capricious decision-making."

 

    On the subject of standing, the Appeals Court summarizes the arguments and its ruling as follows: "Petitioners fall far short of these 'irreducible constitutional . . . elements' of standing, id. at 560. Simply put, Petitioners have failed to establish that the Timing and Tailoring Rules caused them 'injury in fact,' much less injury that could be redressed by the Rules' vacatur. Industry Petitioners contend that they are injured because they are subject to regulation of greenhouse gases, Coalition for Responsible Reg. Timing & Tailoring Br. 14. State Petitioners claim injury because they own some regulated sources and because they now carry a heavier administrative burden. State Pet'rs' Timing & Tailoring Br. 22–23. But as discussed above, see supra Part V, the CAA mandates PSD and Title V coverage for major emitters of greenhouse gases. Thus, Industry Petitioners were regulated and State Petitioners required to issue permits not because of anything EPA did in the Timing and Tailoring Rules, but by

automatic operation of the statute. Given this, neither the Timing nor Tailoring Rules caused the injury Petitioners allege: having to comply with PSD and Title V for greenhouse gases."

 

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, issued a brief statement saying, "The Appeals Court's decision to unambiguously affirm EPA's clean air efforts to reduce dangerous carbon pollution is a big victory for the health of the American people."

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA.), Ranking Member on the House Natural Resources Committee and a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, released a statement saying, "Today's ruling is a grand slam for the EPA and the health of the American people, and another strikeout for the fossil fuel special interests trying to block clean energy progress. The DC Appeals Court now joins the Supreme Court in saying that climate science is sound and the EPA has the authority to regulate dangerous heat-trapping emissions under the Clean Air Act. Three years ago today, the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate and clean energy bill, and the problems addressed by that legislation remain with us today. With the science affirmed and the authority granted, EPA should continue their important work to address the greatest challenge of our generation in dealing with global warming. At the same time, Congressional Republicans should stop denying the science and start working with Democrats to craft more comprehensive and bipartisan responses to the threat posed by global warming."

 

    Sierra Club issued a release on the decision calling it "a sweeping victory for public health and clean air." Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club said, "Today's decision is a huge victory for American families and everyone concerned about protecting the air we breathe and the health of our children. The role of the Clean Air Act in protecting our families from dangerous carbon pollution and climate disruption should never have been in doubt, and this decision is a big step forward in putting the well-being of Americans before the boundless profits of big polluters. Carbon pollution is dangerous to our planet and our health. The Environmental Protection Agency has the right and the duty to keep our communities healthy and now the path is clear for them to curb this dangerous pollution, which threatens our families and planet. We applaud the court's decision and stand with the EPA as they continue to fight for the health of American families."

 

    Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said, "Today's ruling by the court confirms that EPA's common sense solutions to address climate pollution are firmly anchored in science and law. This landmark decision will help secure a healthier and more prosperous future for all Americans. Today is a good day for climate progress in America and for the thin layer of atmosphere that sustains life on Earth." EDF's outside legal counsel Sean Donahue, who presented oral arguments to the court in defense of these protections said, "EPA's reasonable steps to reduce climate pollution will benefit our environment, our economy, our health and our national security. Today's court ruling will help our country move forward toward a clean energy future."

 

    [Note: No immediate reaction to the ruling was available from industry or state government participants at press time.]

 

    Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the statement from Sen. Boxer (click here). Access the statement from Rep. Markey (click here). Access a release from Sierra Club (click here). Access the statement from EDF (click here). [#Climate, #Air, #MIAir, #MIClimate]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

 

Georgia-Pacific v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center

Jun 25: The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of Georgia-Pacific (GP) West, Inc. v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC), Sup.Ct. No. 11-347, commonly referred to as the "forest roads" case. The case asks the Supreme Court to overturn a 2011 ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court which GP says reverses 35 years of law governing how rainwater runoff from forest roads is managed [See WIMS 12/14/12]. The Ninth Circuit's ruling said forest road operators in the states under its jurisdiction will be required to obtain Clean Water Act discharge permits for ditches, drains and culverts that channel rain runoff from their roads -- treating rain runoff the same as industrial sources.

    Mike Adams, Georgia-Pacific senior vice president of sourcing and fiber supply said, "We are pleased for the 2.5 million people and thousands of local economies that depend on forest products that the Supreme Court has decided to hear our appeal in this critical case. Today's decision is a significant step forward in protecting these jobs, especially in those states under the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction. We along with numerous experts continue to believe the long-standing practice of regulating forest roads through state forestry best management practices is the most environmentally responsible way to oversee management of the nation's forest roads. We look forward to arguing our case before the Supreme Court in its next term."

    According to a release from GP, the U.S. Forest Service has estimated that, if the Ninth Circuit ruling were applied nationally, it alone would have to obtain 400,000 permits. Oregon counties estimate the decision will cost them $56 million to secure permits for their 20,000 culverts. Federal and state regulators will have to completely redesign forestry programs that have been in place for a generation. In the states of the Ninth Circuit -- Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Alaska and Hawaii -- the timber industry employs a million people. Nationally, it supports 2.5 million jobs and $87 billion a year in wages.

 

   Timothy Bishop, lead appellate attorney for the forestry industry said, "The Ninth Circuit's decision changing 35 years of law was a mistake in law as well as a mistake for jobs and the environment. EPA has said for 35 years that the most effective approach to managing rainwater runoff from forest roads is through state forestry best management practices designed for local conditions. In place of this long-standing and successful regulatory method, the Ninth Circuit substituted the rigid and costly national permitting scheme used to regulate discharges from factories, chemical plants, mines and other industrial facilities. The circuit's decision is contrary to the plain meaning of the law. And its requirements make no economic or environmental sense when applied to tens of thousands of miles of remote and dispersed roads -- roads that are used for multiple purposes including fire-fighting, recreation and intermittent logging.

 

    NEDC had advised the Supreme Court not to take on the controversial logging pollution lawsuit that began in Oregon. Mark Riskedahl of NEDC said, "If there was regulation of pollution coming off of highways and off of even residential streets, why shouldn't there be regulation of pollution coming off of industrial logging roads." Federal lawyers filed a brief to the court saying the court should leave it to Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency, to sort the issue out.

 

Access the SupCt docket for the case (click here). Access a release from GP (click here). Access a release from NEDC and link to the Federal brief (click here). [#Water, #Land]

 

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
32 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals