• 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)

  • Progress on Rosemere’s Superfund Petition for Camp Bonneville WA

    From left to right: Renee Nordeen, Ecology and Environment, Inc.; Daniel Wright, geologist; Monica Tonel, USEPA Region X Office of Environmental Cleanup, Site Assessment Manager Assigned to Rosemere's Superfund Petition. Group is reviewing maps of Camp Bonneville in preparation of EPA site inspection plans and data gathering efforts, Dec 8, 2010

    Background: Camp Bonneville Superfund Petition, Submitted by Rosemere Neighborhood Association & Columbia Riverkeeper

    In February 2009, following Rosemere’s extensive involvement in what we consider a faulty clean up action plan at the Camp Bonneville military installation, Vancouver WA, Rosemere and Columbia Riverkeeper submitted a formal petition to the US Environmental Protection Agency to list the property on the National Priorities Superfund List.

    See the original Superfund petition here: http://www.rosemerena.org/home/2009/04/06/preliminary-superfund-petition-for-camp-bonneville-february-3-2009/

    The goal of the petition was to bring EPA back into the project in order to correct failing cleanup efforts, currently at a complete standstill. EPA had been a major participant in cleanup efforts more than 10 years ago, but in 2003, EPA withdrew its involvement citing a lack of cooperation from Clark County government, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the US Department of Defense that owned the contaminated property. Camp Bonneville was a former 4000 acre international military training site where munitions, including missiles, grenades, and chemical warfare were used in live drills.

    Documented groundwater contamination at the site has entered the Troutdale Aquifer System, a federally designated Sole Source Aquifer that was petitioned by Rosemere and Columbia Riverkeeper and established in 2006. The source of the contamination is a vast collection (both known and unknown) of buried military munitions and chemicals that have leached into the soil and groundwater throughout the site. Rosemere contends that the plume of toxic chemicals has been mobile for many years, and may have exited to compound, threatening Lacamas Creek and its tributaries, and Lacamas Lake which is hydrologically connected to the Columbia River. [Read More...]

  • Rosemere Neighborhood Association & Columbia Riverkeeper Submit Letter to Ecology RE: Alcoa/Evergreen Aluminum Smelter Supplemental Cleanup Action Plan

    Alcoa Power Plant, Vancouver, WA

    Rosemere Neighborhood Association and Columbia Riverkeeper have for years raised serious concerns about Washington Department of Ecology’s cleanup and oversight at the former Alcoa/Evergreen Aluminum Smelter. One of the major concerns is Ecology’s delay of the cleanup process by separating the East Landfill groundwater contamination decision from other cleanup actions.

    As part of the public comment process on the Alcoa/Evergreen Vancouver Aluminum Smelter Supplemental Cleanup Action Plan and Consent Decree Amendment for the East Landfill, Rosemere and Columbia Riverkeeper submitted a letter urging Ecology to take additional steps to address the contaminants at the site to ensure the protection of human health, salmon, and other aquatic, terrestrial, and avian life in and around the Columbia River.

    To view the letter, please click on this link:
    http://www.rosemerena.org/home/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Alcoa-Vancouver-East-Landfill-12-6-10.pdf

  • Stormy Weather for Clark County Stormwater Plan

    New story from the Public News Service – Washington:

    September 28, 2010

    Stormy Weather for Clark County Stormwater Plan

    TUMWATER, Wash. – How tough should counties be on developers in planning and controlling storm water runoff, a major source of water pollution? That’s the issue in a case to be argued this week at the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board. It alleges that Clark County has what amounts to a special deal with builders for managing the stormwater effects of their projects, allowing them to put off planning for runoff control and let the county take care of any problems.

    The Rosemere Neighborhood Association and two environmental groups behind the complaint – Columbia Riverkeeper and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center – say water quality has suffered as a result. Their attorney, Jan Hasselman with Earthjustice, explains.

    “Clark County is effectively subsidizing developers out of very limited county funds. The idea is that developers don’t have to take on the burden of dealing with the storm water from their projects – the county will pay for it from general funds.”

    The Washington Department of Ecology approved the Clark County plan, and will explain its reasons at the hearing. The problem, says Hasselman, is that if one county has a weaker storm water control policy, state law allows others to adopt it.

    “That’s why this case is so important, not just for Clark County, but statewide. This threatens to really undercut our collective efforts to begin improving the health of rivers and streams, and recover Puget Sound.”

    At issue is how strict counties should be with developers in order to meet federal Clean Water Act requirements. Clark County has said new development hasn’t posed much of a stormwater problem, and that it has enough money to mitigate such problems. The complaint asks that Clark County abide by the same standards as other counties.

    The hearing runs Tuesday, Sept. 28 to Friday, Oct. 1, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily, 1111 Israel Road SW, Tumwater.

    Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/16097-1

  • 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.

  • National Marine Fisheries Service Says Clark County’s Stormwater Plan is Deficient and Will Harm Salmon

    noaamarinefisheries

    Under a lopsided deal reached in early January 2010, the Washington State Department of Ecology (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. In February 2010, Rosemere Neighborhood Association, along with Columbia Riverkeeper, and Northwest Environmental Defense Center, appealed Ecology’s special deal with Clark County to the State Pollution Control Hearings Board in an attempt to repeal Clark County’s faulty stormwater management plan. The three conservation groups also filed a 60-day Notice of Intent to Sue Clark County in federal court for violations of the Clean Water Act. Earthjustice, a public interest law firm, represents the three conservation groups in these legal challenges.

    Local residents and clean water advocates argue Washington State authorized inadequate development standards in Clark County’s stormwater permit that will generate illegal stormwater pollution, and that the stormwater pollution will also harm endangered species of salmon and their habitats.

    Clark County’s Phase I municipal stormwater permit is issued under the National Pollutant Discharge & Elimination System program (NPDES) and is administered by the US Environmental Protection Agency. In turn, EPA defers management and enforcement of the federal stormwater management permit to Ecology. In the appeal, Rosemere et al cite that Ecology is not properly enforcing the federal stormwater permit.

    In June 2010, The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association) issued public comments on Clark County’s alternative municipal Phase I stormwater permit. Clark County is home to 15 endangered species of salmon, steelhead, smelt and sturgeon. NMFS states that Clark County’s stormwater plan will not meet required goals to protect these fisheries and concludes that “adverse effects to listed (endangered) salmon will be significantly increased.” Stephen W. Landino, the Washington State Director for Habitat Conservation, states that NMFS “strongly encourage(s) the EPA to object to the issuance of this (Clark County) permit.”

    To read the NMFS comment letter, please click here. [Read More...]

  • Coalition Urges US Energy Secretary Chu to Withdraw Decision to Use Hanford as a National Radioactive Waste Dump

    Arial view of Hanford Nuclear Reservation & Columbia River

    Arial view of Hanford Nuclear Reservation & Columbia River

    On April 29, 2010, a coalition of Northwest environmental and public health groups, including the Rosemere Neighborhood Association, sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, urging him to withdraw the Department of Energy’s decisions to use Hanford, WA, as a national radioactive waste dump.

    The letter requests:

    “that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) withdraw its 2000 and 2004 Records of Decision selecting Hanford as a disposal site for large volumes of radioactive low-level waste (LLW) and mixed low-level waste (MLLW) from across the Nation.  The Department’s own draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement (TC&WM EIS) clearly demonstrates that importing and burying off-site waste at Hanford poses serious human health and environmental impacts. [Read More...]

  • Press Release: Rosemere Neighborhood Association, Columbia Riverkeeper, Northwest Environmental Defense Center Challenge Clark County Over Weak Stormwater Controls

    stormwateroutfallstwo

    Stormwater Outfalls

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 18, 2010

    Contact:     Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice, (206) 343-7340 ext. 25

    Clark County Challenged for Weak Stormwater Controls
    Clean water advocates put county on notice illegal loopholes must be closed

    Vancouver, WA–Clean water advocates, represented by Earthjustice, today formally put Clark County on notice it could be sued under the federal Clean Water Act for on-going failure to protect fish, drinking water supplies, and rivers, and comply with laws limiting stormwater pollution.

    The 60-day notice letter says Clark County’s inadequate pollution standards will generate illegal stormwater pollution that will harm salmon, streams, groundwater and other natural resources.  Damage to rivers and streams from the new development will force taxpayers, rather than the developers, to pay for the impacts of urban stormwater runoff, including flooding, property damage caused by erosion, and threats to the county’s drinking water supply.

    Stormwater is a toxic mix of grease, metals, pesticides, herbicides, bacteria and nutrients. When dirty 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. Large unnatural flushes of runoff during storm events also cause damaging erosion in streams that destroys salmon habitat and that gets worse with each additional storm.

    The National Research Council, an independent institute created by Congress which produces peer-reviewed studies, recently issued an exhaustive report on the impacts stormwater runoff and warned of its long-term, costly impacts.  According to the National Research Council, “[s]tormwater runoff from the built environment remains one of the great challenges of water pollution control, as this source of contamination is a principal contributor to water quality impairment of waterbodies nationwide.”  Urban Stormwater Management in the United States, National Research Council (Oct. 15, 2008)

    “There needs to be a level playing field for all cities and counties,” said Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman, who is representing the groups.  “Every other jurisdiction in Western Washington is required to meet updated standards for reducing stormwater impacts, but Clark County got a special deal that hurts taxpayers and clean water.”
    The letter emphasizes the advocate’s interest in finding solutions that don’t require litigation.  “We’re asking Clark County to come to the table to discuss what can be done to reduce stormwater pollution and comply with the law,” said Brett VandenHuevel, the Executive Director of Columbia Riverkeeper.

    Earthjustice attorneys Jan Hasselman and Janette Brimmer are representing Rosemere Neighborhood Association, Columbia Riverkeeper, and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center in the notice.  Earlier this month, Earthjustice filed an appeal on behalf of these groups asking the Washington State Pollution Control Hearings board to throw out a lopsided agreement between Clark County and the Washington Department of Ecology that allowed Clark County to maintain its inadequate stormwater standards.

    Federal law required Clark County to adopt new rules governing runoff from development by August of 2008. Rather than comply with Clean Water Act requirements, the county knowingly adopted a significantly weaker flow control standard for new development. While Ecology initially sought to bring an enforcement action against the county for failing to adequately manage stormwater pollution, it later agreed to let Clark County retain the insufficient standards that don’t meet the requirements of clean water laws.

    For a pdf version of the 60- Day Notice, click here.

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