EXH0777028017

PCHBPollution Control Hearings Board of the State of Washington

" [FN1751. Northwest Envtl. Advocates, I I F.3d at 907. [FN176]. Id. [FN177]. 834 F.2d 842, 848-51 (9th Cir. 1987). [FN178]. Id. at 851. [FNI791. Id. at 851-52 (citing Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n v. Peterson, 795 F.2d 688, 697 (9th Cir. 1984). rev'd, 485 U.S. 439 (1988), and City of Las Vegas v. Clark County, 755 F.2d 697, 704 (9th Cir. 1985)). [FNI80]. Id. at 848, 851. [FN181]. PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Dep't ofEcology, 114 S. Ct. 1900, 1909 (1994). [FN1821. Id. (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 830, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 96 (1977)). [FN1831. Northwest Envtl. Advocates v. City of Portland, 11 F.3d 900, 912 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). [FN1841. Almost 10 years ago, William H. Rodgers, Jr. noted: One injunction has been entered, based partly on water quality considerations, against the comtmction of 6.2 miles of paved road by the Forest Service to make possible timber harvesting in the Klamath River Basin in northern California. The predictions were that the turbidity and suspended standards in affected streams would be violated to the detriment of anadromous fish. The far-reaching implications are obvious: here is a prominent nonpoint source activity (construction) engaged in by the nation's biggest builder (the United States) producing commonplace violations (of turbidity and suspended sediment standards). The question that needs answering is why hundreds of decisions of this sort cannot be found. The differences between a harbinger and a deviant are not all that obvious. Rodgers, supra note 174, s…
V V