• Update: New Hurdles for Proposed Oil Terminal

    WA State Supreme Court
    Our friends at Columbia Riverkeeper, Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC), and Sierra Club learned this week that the Washington State Supreme Court will review the previous lower court rulings in their lawsuit  challenging the Port of Vancouver’s closed-door meetings in 2013 during the port’s initial consideration of the Tesoro Savage Oil Terminal lease.

    If they are successful, and win at the Supreme Court level, the potential result could be the court voiding the current lease agreement.

    From the Columbian:

    “If we were to prevail at the Supreme Court, we believe the remedy the court should give us is voiding the lease and asking the Port of Vancouver to make a new decision on the lease in light of the information in a final environmental impact statement,” said attorney Miles Johnson with Columbia Riverkeeper.

    That is not the only challenge facing the Port’s lease agreement. As the deadline looms for the Port to confirm the terminal lease this summer on August 1st, Port Commissioner Brian Wolfe is re-thinking his support for the project:

    Late Thursday, Commissioner Brian Wolfe told The Columbian that he hadn’t made up his mind about how he might cast another vote.

    “Am I prepared to make a decision on it? No,” Wolfe said. “I honestly don’t know; there are so many variables to consider.”

    Wolfe’s uncertainty turns what was a 3-0 decision nearly three years ago into a big maybe.

    “It was and will remain a really hard decision between economic development and the environment, in my mind,” Wolfe said.

    The other two Port Commissioners are divided; Jerry Oliver is expected to re-affirm his support for the terminal, and Eric Labrant,  the newest commissioner, is a longtime opponent to the project, so Wolfe’s vote could sway the lease vote this summer.

    And just this past week, local elected officials have teamed up to submit op-ed pieces to two major regional newspapers slamming the proposed Tesoro Savage Oil Terminal.

    Aisha Topper, Vancouver City Councilmember, and Amanda Fritz who serves on Portland City Council penned a letter to Washington Governor Inslee in The Oregonian on February 25 titled Washington governor must save Portland, Vancouver from giant oil terminal (OPINION). It begins by stating the two cities “stand together in opposing the largest proposed oil terminal in North America.”

    Vancouver Councilmember Bart Hanson, who has led the city’s opposition to the terminal, teamed up in a letter with Spokane City Council President Ben Stuckart submitted to February 27 Spokesman-Review Vancouver oil terminal is a dangerous plan.”

    Their messages could not be clearer – they urge Washington State Governor Inslee to stand up for citizens and deny the Tesoro Savage Oil Terminal.

     

  • BIG WIN FOR CLEAN WATER: CLARK COUNTY AGREES TO IMPROVE SALMON HABITAT AND COMPLY WITH STORMWATER POLLUTION LAWS

    December 18, 2013

    Contacts:
    John Felton, Rosemere Neighborhood Association, 360‐993‐4939
    Brett VandenHeuvel, Columbia Riverkeeper, 503‐348‐2436

    BIG WIN FOR CLEAN WATER: CLARK COUNTY AGREES TO IMPROVE SALMON HABITAT AND COMPLY WITH STORMWATER POLLUTION LAWS

    County agrees to comply with stormwater pollution laws, fund significant stream restoration in lieu of
    potential federal penalties

    (Vancouver, WA) Clark County Commissioners voted today to improve salmon habitat and reduce dirty stormwater pollution as part of a binding settlement agreement with neighborhood and conservation groups.

    “This is a win for clean water and healthy salmon runs in Clark County,” said John Felton, chair of the Rosemere Neighborhood Association. “This is a good result for the community as a whole.”

    Rosemere Neighborhood Association along with Columbia Riverkeeper and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center challenged Clark County’s violation of laws designed to protect salmon and reduce pollution. After the County lost several rounds of litigation, the County has agreed to take steps to correct the problem. Clark County agreed to comply with the Clean Water Act and to provide $3 million in funding to an independent third party, the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, that will oversee projects to protect and restore Clark County rivers and streams harmed by stormwater pollution. The settlement will need to be approved by the U.S. Department of Justice and the federal
    court overseeing the lawsuit.

    “This agreement means cleaner water and more salmon for the region as a whole,” stated Brett VandenHeuvel, Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper. “The County will now act to reduce polluted stormwater and invest in protecting salmon. It’s a win‐win.”

    Stormwater pollution, which is created when rain mixes with debris, chemicals, dirt, and other pollutants and flows into storm sewer systems and then into local waterways, is the number one source of water pollution in urban and developing areas in Washington state.

    The settlement comes after a state appeals board found that the County’s stormwater program violated the law—the state appeals board’s decision was upheld by the Washington Court of Appeals and state Supreme Court. At the same time, a federal judge concluded that the County’s stormwater program violated the Clean Water Act and the Court blocked continued implementation of the County’s illegal stormwater program. The federal court ruled last June that the County was liable for violating federal law, exposing it to potentially millions of dollars in penalties and corrective action for projects that were built to inadequate standards.

    Under the County’s disputed stormwater program, damage to rivers and streams from the stormwater pollution had shifted burdens to taxpayers, from developers, to pay for the impacts of urban stormwater runoff. Impacts range from

    Plaintiffs in the litigation were represented by attorneys Janette Brimmer and Jan Hasselman of Earthjustice.

     

    *****

    To view or download Press Release click here (pdf format)

    Related articles:

    The Columbian: Clark County to pay $3.6 million for violating Clean Water Act
    The Oregonian: Clark County to pay $3 million as part of pollution settlement

  • LANDMARK DECISION: Federal Judge Rules Clark County Violated Permit, Clean Water Act from 2008-2011

    Judge Rules Clark County Violated Clean Water Act for Three YearsUS District Judge Ronald Leighton ruled Thursday Clark County violated their Phase I Permit from August 2008 to December 2011 in what marks a landmark decision for stormwater controls in Washington State.

    Rosemere Neighborhood Association, Columbia Riverkeeper, and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center represented by Earthjustice attorneys Jan Hasselman and Janette Brimmer began the fight for enforcing EPA Clean Water standards for polluted stormwater mitigation in 2010 (see story here)

    In January 2011, the Washington State Pollution Control Board ruled that Clark County’s “alternative” plan for monitoring stormwater was illegal (story here). Clark County subsequently filed an appeal of the Pollution Board’s ruling, but in December 2011, Judge Leighton ruled that pending their appeal, Clark County must comply with Washington State’s stormwater guidelines (story here).

    Most recently, in May, Judge Leighton found Clark County’s argument for modified stormwater controls “makes no sense,” as the Pollution Control Hearings Board decision was clear that Clark County’s modified Agreed Order with Ecology was “unlawful” and the Permit Modification was “invalid.”

    “We are elated that our efforts to protect the environment have yielded such a positive result,” said John Felton, Chairman, Rosemere Neighborhood Association.

    From the Summary Judgment ruling:

    Even viewed in the light most favorable to Clark County, the evidence supports no
    conclusion other than Clark County is liable for violating the 2007 Phase 1 Permit during this time period. The 2007 Phase 1 Permit required Clark County to adopt the default stormwater flow control standard or an approved alternative by August 16, 2008. Clark County, however, to adopt a flow control ordinance that complied with the Permit. On December 28, 2011, this Court enjoined Clark County from issuing any permit or authorization that fails to meet the Phase 1 Permit’s flow control standards. Prior to the injunction, Clark County authorized numerous development projects that should have been subject to the Permit’s flow control requirements, but were not. Brimmer Decl., Ex. G–H, Dkt. #22. As a matter of law, Clark County is liable for violating the 2007 Phase 1 Permit from August 17, 2008 until December 28, 2011. Rosemere’s Motion on this point is GRANTED.

    “This is a great day for counties and cities in our state that are working hard to clean up polluted waterways,“ said Janette Brimmer, attorney for Earthjustice. “We applaud the ruling for recognizing that everyone needs to do their share to protect our precious streams, rivers and salmon and that Clark County, like everyone else, must follow the law.”

    To read Judge Leighton’s Order in full: Judge_Leighton_Order_RE_Stormwater_Summary_Judgment_6-6-2013

    Earthjustice Press Release: Earthjustice Clark Co Stormwater WIN final press release June 7 2013

    In the Columbian: County violated Clean Water Act for three years, judge says

    In the Oregonian: Clark County violated federal Clean Water Act for 3 years, judge rules

  • WA State Supreme Court Denies Clark County’s Stormwater Appeal

    Washington State Temple of Justice

    In a unanimous decision, the Washington State Supreme Court has declined to review Clark County’s appeal of the WA State Court of Appeals stormwater ruling.

    In September 2012, Washington State Court of Appeals upheld the Pollution Control Hearings Board ruling that Clark County’s weak stormwater plan allowed too much polluted runoff and violates both State and Federal laws to protect clean water. For more on that ruling read here: WA Court of Appeals Rules County’s Plan to Manage Polluted Runoff Illegal

    Clark County subsequently appealed that decision to the Washington State Supreme Court which on March 5, 2013 issued a 2 page decision denying Clark County’s petition.

    View the Washington Supreme Court ruling here: WA Supreme Court Rosemere v Clark County Order

    Related articles:

    From The Columbian:

    “Rosemere Neighborhood Association, an environmental advocacy group that, along with Columbia Riverkeeper and Northwest Environmental Defense Center, have been winning at every level in their attempt to force Clark County to follow state default standards for managing polluted runoff.” ……….Read the full article here: Clark County dealt stormwater setback: State high court refuses to review unfavorable ruling

    From The Oregonian: Washington Supreme Court rejects Clark County’s stormwater appeal

  • WA Court of Appeals Rules County’s Plan to Manage Polluted Runoff Illegal

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

    September 26, 2012

    Contacts:
    Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice
    Dvija Michael Bertish, Rosemere Neighborhood Association
    Brett VandenHeuvel, Columbia Riverkeeper
    Mark Riskedahl, Northwest Environmental Defense Center

    WA Court of Appeals Rules County’s Plan to Manage Polluted Runoff Illegal

    Taxpayer subsidy, fish-killing loopholes scrapped by judges
    as violations to clean water laws

    Tacoma, WA – In a major decision with statewide impacts in Washington State, a court of appeals ruled Clark County’s weak development rules that allow too much polluted runoff violate state and federal laws to protect clean water. The ruling, announced late Tuesday, signals an end to the county’s on-going failure to protect rivers, streams and salmon threatened with extinction.

    “We applaud the court of appeals for recognizing that Clark County’s refusal to comply with clean water laws is unfair to other cities and counties in our state, not to mention industries, that continue to work hard to clean up our polluted waterways,” said Dvija Michael Bertish of the Rosemere Neighborhood Association. “As residents of Clark County who enjoy fishing and swimming in our local rivers, we’re fed up with our elected officials’ attempts to compromise our health and safety—especially when the law requires otherwise.”

    Rosemere Neighborhood Association, Columbia Riverkeeper, and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center, represented by Earthjustice, challenged Clark County’s adoption of development standards that were too weak to prevent significant harm to the county’s already-stressed rivers and streams. “The Court of Appeals ruling comes down to this—clean water is our future and everyone needs to do their share to keep our water clean,” said Jan Hasselman from Earthjustice, who is representing the groups.

    Polluted runoff, or stormwater, is a toxic stew of metals, oil, grease, pesticide, herbicides, bacteria and nutrients. When it rains, the toxic runoff drains off roofs and streets in amounts that seriously degrade water quality and kill marine life. The county and an association of developers appealed a January 2011 ruling of the state Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) that the county is out of compliance with federal clean water laws and shifted the burden of protecting clean water from developers to local taxpayers.

    Specifically, the PCHB found Clark County’s stormwater program:

    • Is not based on any science and failed to protect water quality and salmon.
    • Unlawfully exempts development projects that “vested” prior to April of 2010.
    • Unlawfully allows Clark County to shift resources from its existing retrofit program to mitigate for new development.
    • Unlawfully fails to require “low impact development” at new development and mitigation sites.

    The Court of Appeals concurred. “Not only has Clark County violated the law, it is ignoring the very real economic and quality of life costs associated with dirty stormwater pollution,” said Brett VandenHeuvel, Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper. “The County’s rogue approach to dealing with stormwater pollution ignores the very real costs of increased flooding, polluted drinking water, and toxics in fish. It’s time stop using outdated thinking and transition to much greater reliance on low impact development and better land use planning. The stakes are too high for delay.”

    The county has 30 days to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court if it chooses. Additionally, a federal court has stayed an enforcement action against the county until the appeals court rules, and is likely to open the case now that the appeal is resolved.

    A copy of the Court of Appeals ruling can be downloaded here: WA COURT OF APPEALS D2 41833-9-II PUBLISHED OPINION

    A copy is available online here: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=418339MAJ

    Other news links:

    Editorial: County Keeps Hearing ‘No’ – Stormwater rules fight is being lost in the courts; it’s time to give up

    Clark County loses stormwater ruling

    Washington court rules against Clark County in polluted runoff case

    Clark County loses polluted runoff case

    #

  • CITIZENS FIGHT FOR CLEAN WATER IN CLARK COUNTY

    Fighting For Clean Water

    CITIZENS TAKE ON CLARK COUNTY’S FAILED ATTEMPT TO MAKE TAXPAYERS PAY FOR DEVELOPERS’ STORMWATER POLLUTION

    Nationwide, stormwater is the leading source of water pollution. This is also true for the Columbia River Basin. In urban areas, rain runs across dirty pavement and roofs, picking up toxic metals, oil, grease, bacteria and other contaminants along the way.

    Experts across the country agree: the cost of stormwater pollution is steep. Murky, smelly streams and rivers and fish advisories warning people not to eat otherwise healthy, locally caught fish are a stark reminder of the public costs of stormwater pollution. Yet Clark County tried to make taxpayers pay for stormwater impacts that are the responsibility of private development. Taxpayer dollars already support public stormwater infrastructure and now its time for developers to pay their share.

    IGNORING COMMON SENSE

    Why is Clark County Trying to Evade Protections for Safe, Swimmable Rivers and Livable Communities?

    In 2010, local citizens and conservation groups successfully challenged Clark County’s sweetheart deal with Washington State regulators—a deal that made Clark County the only major county in the state to avoid critical steps to reduce stormwater pollution. Washington’s Pollution Control Hearings Board ruled that the County’s controversial development standards violated state laws to protect clean water. In 2011, a federal court judge also found that Clark County’s actions likely violate the federal Clean Water Act.

    Not only is Clark County violating the law, it is ignoring the very real economic and quality of life costs associated with stormwater pollution. For example, stormwater pollution:

    • Increases flooding—the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) estimates that stormwater causes or contributes to at least one quarter of economic losses due to flooding—or $1 billion per year.
    • Adds costs to providing safe drinking water.
    • Threatens public health.
    • Impacts fishing opportunities and water recreation.

    CITIZENS FIGHT FOR CLEAN WATER IN CLARK COUNTY

    Many cities and counties in Washington State are working hard to clean up polluted waterways. One of the primary ways Washington State is trying to reduce stormwater pollution is by requiring new development and redevelopment to control stormwater as it leaves the property.

    CONTINUED….Click here for the full document: CITIZENS FIGHT FOR CLEAN WATER IN CLARK COUNTY

  • Federal Judge Suspends County’s Inadequate Polluted Runoff Standards

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 29, 2011

    Contacts:
    Janette Brimmer, Earthjustice, 206-343-7340 ext. 1029
    Dvija Michael Bertish, Rosemere Neighborhood Association, 360-281-4747
    Brett VandenHeuvel, Columbia Riverkeeper, 503-348-2436

    Federal Judge Suspends County’s Inadequate
    Polluted Runoff Standards

    Injunction requires Clark County to shelve fish-killing loopholes
    in its development standards

    Tacoma, WA.—A Washington state county’s controversial development standards appear to violate federal laws to protect clean water, according to a preliminary ruling by a U.S. District Court Judge.

    The decision, issued December 28 by U.S. District Court Judge Ronald B. Leighton, means Clark County must comply with federal clean water laws, like other cities and counties in the state, to protect rivers, streams and salmon threatened with extinction. The ruling applies to development projects permitted or approved by the county on or after the court’s order while a related state court appeal is pending.

    Rosemere Neighborhood Association, Columbia Riverkeeper, and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center, represented by Earthjustice, challenged Clark County’s failure to protect threatened salmon.

    “Many cities and counties in our state are working hard to clean up polluted waterways and now Clark County must finally do the same,” said Janette Brimmer, an Earthjustice attorney who is representing the groups. “The ruling recognizes that everyone needs to do their share to protect our precious streams, rivers and salmon and that Clark County, like everyone else, must follow the law.”

    Last year, the neighborhood and conservation groups prevailed before the state Pollution Control Hearings Board, which hears appeals of state environmental regulations and permits. In January of this year, the Board rejected the county’s “alternative” plan for managing polluted stormwater runoff finding that it violated the County’s stormwater permit and was too weak to prevent significant harm to already stressed rivers and streams.

    The County’s inadequate “alternative” plan was developed in a compromise with the Department of Ecology (Ecology), which oversees the federal Clean Water Act. Stormwater runoff a major source of water pollution because it is a stew of toxic metals, oil, grease, pesticides, herbicides, bacteria that runs off pavement into streams and rivers.

    Clark County refused to implement the required development runoff standards. After finding Clark County in violation of its stormwater permit, the Department of Ecology yielded to county pressure and agreed to allow Clark County to retain inadequate stormwater standards for development in exchange for a promise to implement taxpayer-funded mitigation projects. The controversial approach did not protect streams polluted by development runoff and shifted the burden of protecting clean water from developers to local taxpayers.

    As noted by the federal court, the Board had found the program to be illegal in several important respects. Specifically, the Clark County program:

    • Is not based on any science and fails to protect water quality and salmon.
    • Unlawfully exempts development projects that “vested” prior to April of 2010.
    • Unlawfully allows Clark County to shift resources from its existing retrofit program to mitigate for new development.
    • Unlawfully fails to require “low impact development” at new development and mitigation sites.

    Clark County appealed the Board decision in state court and refused to comply with the Board’s decision, forcing clean water advocates to take the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to enforce the Clean Water Act.

    Judge Leighton’s preliminary ruling agreed that the clean water advocacy groups have demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claims that Clark County’s inadequate development standards for polluted runoff violate the Clean Water Act and that irreparable harm to the environment is the result.

    The judge therefore imposed an obligation on the County to follow the original requirements of its stormwater permit; the same requirements that over 100 other cities and counties in Western Washington have been complying with since 2008.

    Judge Leighton’s order states:

    “Environmental injury, by its nature, is often permanent or at least of long duration” (page 11)
    “The public interest favors compliance with environmental laws” (page 12) and the Clean Water Act requires strict enforcement to effectuate its purpose of protecting sensitive aquatic environments” (id)
    “…More than 100 cities and counties in Western Washington are subject to the Phase I [stormwater] Permit’s default flow control standard and are apparently able to comply with its requirements.” (id)

    “Our association applauds the judge’s order because it reinforces that we need to do everything we can to stop undermining water quality,” said Dvija Michael Bertish of the Rosemere Neighborhood Association. “Clark County has ignored the public’s concerns about stormwater violations,and we hope the court’s decision will bring the County back into
    compliance with the law in order to protect the water and endangered species.”

    “Columbia River salmon and our communities need clean water,” stated Brett VandenHeuvel, Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper. “Clark County must take steps to reduce pollution.”

    The clean water groups include Rosemere Neighborhood Association, Columbia Riverkeeper, and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center. They are represented by attorneys Janette Brimmer and Jan Hasselman of Earthjustice.

    A copy of the ruling is available here: SJOrderGrantingPreliminaryInjunction12-28-11.pdf

    To view this Press Release in pdf format click here: For Immediate Release:Federal Judge Suspends County’s Inadequate Polluted Runoff Standards.pdf

    ##

  • PEAC Comments on Final Environmental Impact Statement for I-5 Columbia River Crossing Project

    I-5 Interstate Bridge Over Columbia River

    Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center (“PEAC”), the Environmental Legal Clinic of Lewis & Clark Law School, has submitted comments on behalf of a coalition of environmental groups on the Columbia River Crossing Project (“CRC”) Final Environmental Impact Statement.

    PEAC clients include Rosemere Neighborhood Association, Coalition for a Livable Future, the Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Columbia Riverkeeper, the Portland Audubon Society, Oregon Public Health Institute, Upstream Public Health, and Association of Oregon Rail and Trail Advocates. PEAC also states that although it specifically represents these groups, it is “in fact representing the concerns and views of a broad and diverse coalition of groups.”

    To date, CRC has established a pattern of ignoring input from these environmental and stakeholder groups concerned about the proposed bridge design impacts to our sole source aquifer, surface and groundwater resources, salmon, air quality, general public health concerns and other environmental impacts.

    In this document PEAC details all these concerns and the various technical reports behind them, finding,

    Overall it is remarkable how much incomplete and missing analysis is found when the public reviews this FEIS, which has already cost Oregon and Washington taxpayers more than $130 million. This would be Oregon’s largest public works project, and its taxpayers and the taxpayers of Washington are entitled to a much more thorough and complete analysis, a true comparison of all reasonable alternatives that “sharply defines the issues and provide[s] a clear basis of choice among options” (40 C.F.R. § 1502.14), and a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on all of those things in a supplemental DEIS.

    While the coalition is not “anti-bridge”, it does charge CRC with the responsibility to not harm our environment, destroy our resources or our community and to be fiscally responsible.

    PEAC concludes with,

    For all the reasons set forth above, PEAC respectfully requests, on behalf of its clients listed below, that the responsible federal agencies and the CRC Task Force withdraw the CRC FEIS and issue a corrected Supplemental DEIS for public comment.

    You can read the entire PEAC document “Comments on September 2011 Final Environmental Impact Statement for I-5 Columbia Crossing Project” here: PEAC_Comments_on_CRC_FEIS
    (pdf format – please note this is a fairly large document a may take a moment to open)

  • PRESS RELEASE: Pollution Control Board Rules Clark County Development Standards Illegal

    PRESS RELEASE****PRESS RELEASE****PRESS RELEASE

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    January 6, 2011

    Contacts:

    Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice, 206-343-7340 ext. 25
    Dvija Michael Bertish, Rosemere Neighborhood Association, 360-281-4747
    Brett VandenHeuvel, Columbia Riverkeeper, 503-348-2436
    Mark Riskedahl, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, 503-768-6673

    Appeals Board Rules– Clark County Development Standards Illegal
    Taxpayer subsidy & fish-killing loopholes scrapped

    Tumwater, WA.-In a major decision with statewide impacts, a state appeals board today ruled that Clark County’s controversial development standards violate state and federal laws to protect clean water.

    The ruling, by the state Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB), means the county is out of compliance with federal clean water laws. It signals an end to the county’s on-going failure to protect rivers, streams and salmon threatened with extinction.

    “Clean water is our future. Clark County has the potential to be a leader in low impact development, parks and green space. These are real growth sectors in our economy and will put people back to work,” said Dvija Michael Bertish of the Rosemere Neighborhood Association.

    Rosemere Neighborhood Association, Columbia Riverkeeper, and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center, represented by Earthjustice, challenged Clark County’s adoption of development standards that were too weak to prevent significant harm to the County’s already-stressed rivers and streams. [Read More...]

  • Press Release: Pollution Control Board Hearing

    Press Release******Press Release******Press Release

    September 17, 2010

    Pollution panel to weigh closing illegal loopholes in Washington’s building rules and strong controls for polluted runoff

    WHAT: The Pollution Control Hearings Board will begin a trial to determine whether to throw out Clark County’s “special lopsided deal” under the state stormwater code.

    The County’s plan allows harmful development without proper runoff controls.

    The hearing raises issues of statewide importance, including the question of whether state vesting laws should trump efforts to protect rivers, streams and Puget Sound.

    The vesting law allows developers to build projects under whatever rules are in place when they file a development application. This lets developers avoid any new rules that may be adopted later, even if the rules are adopted before anything is actually built.

    WHEN: September 28, 2010 – October 1, 2010

    Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    WHERE: Pollution Control Hearings Board

    Environmental Hearings Offices—Room 301

    1111 Israel Road S.W.

    Tumwater, WA 98501

    CONTACTS: Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice, 206-719-6512 (cell)

    Dvija Michael Bertish, Rosemere Neighborhood Association, 360-281-4747

    Brett VandenHeuvel, Columbia Riverkeeper, 503-348-2436

    Mark Riskedahl, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, 503-768-6673

    BACKGROUND: In February 2010, local residents and clean water advocates filed a challenge to Clark County’s on-going failure to protect rivers, streams and comply with laws limiting stormwater pollution. The county’s contested plan was developed with the Department of Ecology, the agency charged with regulating Clark County under state law and the federal Clean Water Act.

    The public interest law firm Earthjustice filed an appeal on behalf of the Rosemere Neighborhood Association, Columbia Riverkeeper, and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center asking the Washington State Pollution Control Hearings Board to throw out a recent agreement between Clark County and the Washington Department of Ecology. Local residents and clean water advocates argue the state authorized inadequate development standards that will generate illegal stormwater pollution.

    Stormwater runoff is federally regulated as a major source of water pollution. It contains toxic metals, oil, grease, pesticides, herbicides, bacteria and nutrients. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency released a startling report on toxics in the Columbia Basin, which identified stormwater as a leading cause of toxic pollution in the Basin. When stormwater runs off parking lots, buildings, and other urban development, it carries with it toxic metals, particularly copper and zinc, which harm salmon and other aquatic life.

    Under a lopsided deal reached in early January, Ecology agreed to allow Clark County to retain inadequate stormwater standards for new development in exchange for a promise to implement county funded stormwater mitigation projects.

    However, Clark County is already required to implement these projects under federal law. Additionally, the agreement allows Clark County to mitigate new development anywhere in the county, up to three years after the development occurs.

    The appealing groups are represented by attorneys Jan Hasselman and Janette Brimmer of Earthjustice.

    About the Pollution Control Hearings Board

    The Pollution Control Hearings Board acts like a court for appeals of state environmental regulations. The three board members hear appeals from orders and decisions made by the Department of Ecology and other agencies as provided by law. The Board’s function is to provide litigants a full and complete administrative hearing, as promptly as possible, followed by a fair and impartial written decision based on the facts and law. The Board is not affiliated with the Department of Ecology or any other state agency. The Board consists of three members, who are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the State Senate for staggered six-year terms.

Videos, Slideshows and Podcasts by Cincopa Wordpress Plugin

viagra over the counter
generic viagra canada
Guaranteed cheapest viagra
buy viagra online discount
canadian pharmacy generic viagra
buy viagra now
buy cheap viagra online
Cheapest Viagra Online
best place to buy viagra online reviews
Buy viagra usa
buy sale viagra
buy isoptin
buy cheap viagra online
buy real viagra online
Buy viagra Mesa
buy viagra san francisco
Buy viagra where
usa cialis
cheap viagra 100mg
buy viagra with discount
best place to buy generic viagra online
buy viagra online canada
viagra best buy
viagra from canada