This page contains bill sponsorships in the Senate and House. Bill sponsorships indicate the topics that legislators are most interested in, and spend the most time on.

13-H2026 on May 16, 2013

Opponent's argument against bill: (Evergreen Magazine and Washington Forest Law Center): In Aug. 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that polluted stormwater generated by logging roads is subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. [The ruling meant] that rain runoff from forest roads constituted an industrial (not forestry) activity, which should be considered a "point source" discharge under the CWA. The lawsuit was brought because forest roads have been dumping sediment into rivers that support myriad species of salmon and resident trout, all of which are at risk from the pollution. The ruling will require State agencies to issue permits and ensure that road construction and maintenance practices limit or eliminate such discharges.

In March 2013, the US Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit: permits are not required for stormwater discharges from pipes, ditches and channels along logging roads. [This legislation supports the Supreme Court ruling, against the Ninth Circuit conclusion].

Proponent's argument for bill: (Press release by sponsors):

Sen. WYDEN (D-OR): "We need a healthy timber industry to provide timber jobs and to do the restoration work that ensures healthy forests. The way to do that is to stop litigating questions that have already been answered."

Sen. CRAPO (R-ID): "The jobs and economic activities relating to the forest products industry are critical to the Pacific Northwest. The Clean Water Act was not intended to regulate stormwater runoff on forest roads."

Rep. HERRERA BEUTLER (R-WA): "At the heart of our efforts are the moms and dads employed by healthy, working forests--and passing this law will help make sure they have jobs, and will help make our forests healthy."

Also see the related Senate bill S.0971

Participating counts on VoteMatch question 8. Question 8: EPA regulations are too restrictive Scores: -2=Strongly oppose; -1=Oppose; 0=neutral; 1=Support; 2=Strongly support.
• Topic: Environment
• Headline: Sponsored no EPA permits required for forest road runoff (Score: 2)
• Headline 2: No EPA permits required for forest road runoff (Score: 2)
  
  Participating counts on AmericansElect question 8.
• Headline: Sponsored no EPA permits required for forest road runoff (Answer: A)
• Headline 2: No EPA permits required for forest road runoff (Answer: A)
• AmericansElect Quiz Question 8 on Environment: Which of the following statements comes closest to your personal view?
  • A: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity
  • B: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity, but should be somewhat protected
  • C: Natural resources should be mostly protected, but also exist for the benefit of humanity
  • D: Natural resources exist on their own and should be completely protected
  • E: Unsure
  
  
  
• Key for participation codes:
• Sponsorships: p=sponsored; o=co-sponsored; s=signed
• Memberships: c=chair; m=member; e=endorsed; f=profiled; s=scored
• Resolutions: i=introduced; w=wrote; a=adopted
• Cases: w=wrote; j=joined; d=dissented; c=concurred
• Surveys: '+' supports; '-' opposes.