Those who are concerned for the protection and rehabilitation of the rivers, steams, and lakes and the animals that inhabit these waterbodies might take the time to learn best how to apply such protection under state and federal water law.
TMDLs are happening all over the state. However, the quality and effectiveness of TMDLs as pollution reduction programs depends on the participation of those who are interested in such protection.
May 31, 2001: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the district court's decision in the Prosolino case (looking at the applicability of the TMDL program to waters impaired soley by nonpoint source pollution).
"Looking at the statute as a whole, we conclude that the EPA's interpretation of sec. 303(d) is not only entirely reasonable, but considerably more convincing than the one offered by the plaintiffs in this case." p. 7933.
"For all the reasons we have surveyed, the CWA is best read to include in the sec. 303(d) listing and TMDLs requiremtns waters impaired only by nonpoint sources of pollution. Moreover, to the extent the statute is ambiguous -- which is not very much -- the substantial deference we owe the EPA's interpretation, under either Chevron or Skidmore, requires that we uphold the agency's more than reasonable interpretation. We therefore hold that the EPA did not exceed its statutory authority in identifying the Garcia River pursuant to sec. 303(d)(1)(A) and establishing the Garcia River TMLD, even though the river is polluted only by nonpoint sources of pollution." p. 7935
Read the whole document at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016026p.pdf
CONTAMINATION - FARM RUNOFF - Court ruling a key win for EPA. Pollution must
be limited regardless of source
San Francisco Chronicle - June 1, 2002
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
In a ruling that could speed cleanup of the nation's rivers and lakes, a federal appeals court upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to limit pollution from farm and logging runoff on Friday.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected arguments by two owners of Mendocino County woodlands, joined by state and national farm organizations, that the EPA's power to put numeric limits on discharges into polluted waterways covered only "point sources" -- pipes from factories and wastewater treatment plants.
Reducing point-source pollution through technological improvements was the EPA's focus for nearly two decades after passage of the 1972 Clean Water Act, which assigned the EPA to oversee state efforts to meet water-quality standards.
But lobbying and lawsuits by environmentalists pushed the agency in the early 1990s to curb pollution from sediment, fertilizers and other byproducts of runoff. The EPA started asserting authority to set maximum daily discharges of each type of pollutant into troubled waterways -- levels that were technically not mandatory but had to be adopted by states to secure vital federal funding.
"In most areas, this is by far the biggest water quality problem," said David Smith of the EPA's regional office in San Francisco. He said Friday's ruling preserved "one of the more powerful tools that the Clean Water Act gave us to assess and clean up water pollution."
The three-judge panel agreed with the EPA that the law allows the agency to limit discharges "without regard to the source of pollution" when needed to meet water quality standards. Implementing and monitoring the limits are state responsibilities, the court said.
The ruling, which upheld a federal judge's March 2000 decision, was the first by any appeals court on the issue. It is binding in California and eight other Western states and will be influential elsewhere, said advocates on both sides.
Russell Eggert, lawyer for the Mendocino landowners and the county, state and national Farm Bureau Federations, said they are considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs, Guido and Betty Pronsolino, own 800 acres of forestland near the Garcia River, one of 17 rivers on the state's North Coast classified as polluted by the EPA in 1992. The EPA -- sued by environmental and fishing groups, which said coho salmon and steelhead were being harmed -- agreed in 1997 to limit discharges of sediment and other pollutants into each river.
State forestry officials adopted the limits and required the Pronsolinos to restrict erosion if they wanted a logging permit. The couple said the protective measures would cost $750,000. Another would-be logger said the restrictions would cost him $10.6 million.
Alan Levine
Coast Action Group
Box 215
Point Arena, CA 95468
RRRAUL Home | Search RRRAUL | News | Logging | Fishery | Watershed | Photographs | Contacts | Organization | Calendar | External Links |