Group keeps up challenge to logging roads

March 20, 2013 @ 3:08 pm

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) - A conservation group said Wednesday it will keep pushing federal authorities to more closely regulate muddy logging roads, despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday that sided with the timber industry on the issue.

Activists believe the ruling left room to press the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate runoff from the roads through specific permits, rather than broad recommendations, said Paul Kampmeier, a lawyer representing the Northwest Environmental Defense Center.

The center sued the Oregon Department of Forestry over roads in Tillamook State Forest that drain into salmon streams.

The suit contends the Clean Water Act specifically says water running through ditches and culverts built to handle storm water from logging roads is a source of pollution when it flows directly into a river.

Such roads require the same sort of permit from the federal agency as a factory, the suit states.

However, in a 7-1 vote, the high court reversed a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that held logging road runoff into salmon streams is the same as any other industrial pollution.

"The Supreme Court ruling today, while not the ruling we wanted, certainly suggests EPA has the power to solve the problem," Kampmeier said. "We expect to continue working with EPA to get a solution that will be effective on the ground."

The EPA disagreed with the appeals court ruling, and Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the court that the agency's reading of its own regulations is entitled to deference from the court.

The agency has since issued a new regulation that makes it clear that water from logging roads is the same as runoff from a farmer's field and is not industrial pollution.

The environmental center filed another lawsuit in January challenging the new rule. But Kampmeier said it is unclear if that challenge will go forward in light of the Supreme Court ruling.

Activists could cite different sections of the Clean Water Act requiring permits for operations that pollute U.S. waters or violate clean water standards.

The court "effectively said EPA gets to decide whether to regulate by requiring permits for polluting roads," Kampmeier said. "Because EPA has said they didn't intend to regulate them, the court found EPA did not require permits."

EPA referred comment to the U.S. Department of Justice, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Dave Tenny, president of the National Alliance of Forest Owners, praised the current EPA policy that regulates logging roads the same as farm fields. He expects the legal challenge to continue, even though he said it has only caused disruption.

"We just won an important round in an ongoing fight," Tenny said. "What we have been looking for all along is to maintain what EPA has done successfully for 37 years."

Per Ramfjord, an attorney representing the timber industry, said he doubted the appeals court would be receptive to new challenges to the EPA, given the strong majority in the Supreme Court ruling.


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
More Local News
Top Stories

  • One
    Microsoft calls its new Xbox 'truly intelligent TV'

  • Otherworldly
    Amazon has new plans for huge biospheres on its new campus

  • 15 Minutes
    UW meteorologist says the science of predicting tornadoes has improved
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (4)


  • Add A Comment

  • Hayduke wrote...
    But, but, but, I thought the EPA was just a bunch of jack-booted thugs running roughshod over industry?
    March 20, 2013 2:32 pm
    And now they're siding with the timber industry's ridiculous claim that logging road runoff isn't pollution?

    Maybe they should ask the salmon, and the industries that depend on them, if they think mudslides in spawning beds is pollution.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Uh, salmon don't talk.
    March 20, 2013 3:56 pm
    They are fish. Simple animals with small brains...Like liberals.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Hayduke wrote...
    Uh, but fishermen do.
    March 20, 2013 6:46 pm
    They fish for salmon, which directly and indirectly provide tens of thousands of jobs in our region.

    It's a simple concept. Apparently, however, it's too complex for you to follow.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    You said to "ask the salmon".
    March 21, 2013 6:43 am
    You did not say ask the fishermen. Nice try, Sparky. And the state spends millions on hatchery fish; last year was a fantasitc coho season. But the left is NEVER satsified. Of course you all live in wooden homes, drive cars, heat your houses and on and on....but then it's cool to "love the environment" all while living the opposite. But libs are hypocrites so it's not surprising.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }