Oregon Polluted Runoff

Polluted runoff, or nonpoint source pollution, is every source of pollution that is not a point source with a permit. In Oregon, the primary sources of nonpoint pollution are logging, farming, grazing, mining, and water withdrawals. A state’s interest in controlling nonpoint sources is key to the successful reduction of polluted runoff because Congress did not establish a regulatory system in the Clean Water Act for these sources. Instead, Congress has passed various inducements and punishments—carrots and sticks—to encourage states to control nonpoint sources.

One such “stick” was passed in 1990: the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA). CZARA required that states have coastal nonpoint source control programs in place—and approved by two federal agencies—by 1996 or face funding cuts in federal grants. Oregon was among many states that did not have an approvable program by 1996, or to date. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which co-administer CZARA, decided to give Oregon a “conditional approval,” keeping the money flowing on condition that the state would develop a full program.

Carrots and Sticks Come to Oregon

In 2009, NWEA sued EPA and NOAA for failing to make a final decision and to withhold funds from Oregon. By 2010, the lawsuit had been settled based on both federal and state commitments. First, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) agreed to develop a pilot program to demonstrate that even in the face of a refusal by the Department of Forestry to improved logging regulations, DEQ could control logging pollution. Second, the federal agencies agreed to propose and finalize an approval or disapproval by specified dates and to withhold federal funds as required by the law if their action was a disapproval.

Soon after the settlement, DEQ began to renege on its commitments and by July 2013, the state made its refusal to follow through explicit. Under the terms of the NWEA settlement, however, EPA and NOAA were required to proceed and they issued a proposed disapproval of Oregon’s coastal nonpoint program. After taking public comment, the federal agencies eventually disapproved Oregon’s program in January 2015. After further court skirmishes, the two agencies withheld a portion of Oregon’s federal grant funding as required by CZARA.

Oregon Logging Practices

Oregon’s inadequate logging practices on private lands have been a sore point for many years. Focused on protection of streamside vegetation that provides shade, prevents erosion, and creates habitat for fish, Oregon’s logging rules lag far behind those in Washington and California as well as rules that apply to federal lands and Oregon state forests. Over those years, federal agencies have urged improvements to no avail. Meanwhile, as logging continued to degrade water quality in coastal watersheds, the Oregon Coast coho was listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act and Oregon’s own Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) issued findings in 1999 that the rules were not adequate to protect wild salmon. By 2009, having ignored every other agency and science panel to that point, the Oregon Department of Forestry was ready to issue its own findings that its rules were inadequate to meet Oregon’s water quality standards for temperature. Moving slowly, in 2012, the Board of Forestry issued its own findings that its current rules were not protective. By 2017 the Board was still in the process of revising Oregon’s logging practices for only some western watersheds, and only some streams, with less protection than had been recommended by its own staff.

Oregon Farming Practices

Although EPA and NOAA had already given informal approval to Oregon’s coastal program insofar as it purportedly controlled farm runoff, NWEA urged the two agencies to take a second look. In a number of letters to the federal agencies, NWEA made the case that although it appears that Oregon has a regulatory program controlling farm pollution, in fact it does not. When EPA and NOAA put their proposed disapproval out for comment, they invited the public to provide information on whether Oregon adequately controls agricultural runoff, however they took no position when they issued the final determination.