Supreme Court Sides With Loggers in Runoff Case

[submarinesailor]

Check out this article:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/20/supreme-court-sides-with-timber-industry-in-runoff-dispute-dealing-blow-to/

Score one for the good guys.

Bruce

[PAFaller]

The scarier part of all this is that in the beginning of the video they mention the administration proposing over 6000 new laws!! and 600 of them are from the EPA. They can't enforce all the laws they have now, let alone to keep adding more and more. I am not a politician, dont have any desire to be one, but I cant see how with that many laws there isnt overlap and redundancy. And we wonder why we have a debt problem.

I have been following this particular topic though, glad to see it didnt go anywhere. My understanding was that a bunch of enviro groups wanted dirt roads used for logging to be considered point source pollutants, and therefore you would have to jump through a bunch of hoops and file endless permits to build logging roads. My take is it was a backdoor attempt at crippling an already stressed industry.

[JDeere]

This is a major victory for the logging industry. Had it gone the other way it would have been like having spotted owls all over the country.

[coxy]

 its about time we all win at some thing

[mark686]

isnt logging the same as farming just a different cop? dont we fall under ag?

[CTL logger]

isnt logging the same as farming just a different cop? dont we fall under ag?

I think it varies from state to state here in PA  they like to say agriculture is one of the biggest industries with sawmills and logging falling under that umbrella but I pay 6% sales tax on my off road fuel farmers don't. It's a real money maker for them they started the sales tax thing a few years ago, I don't see how harvesting trees is any different than harvesting corn. I've thought about buying a small farm running everything through it and saving   7-8 grand a year in tax money.

[Ron Scott]

FORESTRY NEWS UPDATE

Today the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling that forest roads require industrial discharge permits under EPA's stormwater rules.  The effect of the Court's decision is to effectively erase the Ninth Circuit's decision from the books.

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court in which ROBERTS, THOMAS, GINSBURG, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, joined, and in which SCALIA, J., joined as to Parts I and II.  JUSTICE BREYER took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

The Opinion of the Court stated:

"The preamendment version of the Industrial Stormwater Rule, as permissibly construed by the agency, exempts discharges of channeled stormwater runoff from logging roads from the NPDES permitting scheme...For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion."

The Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC) has filed new litigation in the Ninth Circuit challenging EPA's recent national rule clarifying that forestry operations are not industrial activities under the stormwater rules and they have stated that they will not stop litigating until permits are required for forest roads.   

We congratulate the National Alliance of Forestland Owners (NAFO) who spearheaded the efforts of the forestry community to reverse the Ninth Circuit's ruling. 

The complete ruling can be found at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-338_kifl.pdf

[Norm]

Good to see a win for all of us. The EPA has gotten their hands slapped several times lately like in the Sacket case. Lesson is to not let them push us around with their so called powers especially under the clean water act.