Quantcast
Don't Miss

High court rules in logging-road runoff, Medicaid cases

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with timber interests in a dispute over the regulation of runoff from logging roads in western forests.

In a 7-1 vote, the court reversed a federal appeals court ruling which held that muddy water running off roads used in industrial logging is the same as any other industrial pollution, requiring a Clean Water Act permit from the Environmental Protection Agency.

EPA itself disagreed with that court ruling, and Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the court that the agency’s reading of its own regulations is entitled to deference from the court.

In any event, the agency has since issued a new regulation that removes any doubt that water from logging roads is the same as runoff from a farmer’s field, not industrial pollution.

Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, saying that the court gives EPA and other agencies the authority to say what their rules mean “for no good reason.”

Justice Stephen Breyer did not take part in the case because his brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, was appointed to sit on the appeals court panel that issued the ruling overturned Wednesday.

The consolidated cases are Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, 11-338, and Georgia-Pacific West v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, 11-347.

Claim on settlement rejected

Separately on Wednesday, the justices blocked North Carolina from trying to take more than $900,000 from a legal settlement won by the family of a 13-year-old girl who suffered devastating injuries during her birth.

The court ruled 6-3 Wednesday in favor of the family of the girl, identified only as E.M.A. She is severely disabled as a result of what her parents say was a botched delivery.

North Carolina has spent nearly $2 million for her medical care and when the family settled a malpractice lawsuit for $2.8 million, the state claimed a third of the settlement.

Writing for the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the state can’t claim a share of the settlement as reimbursement for medical care without determining how much of the settlement is attributable to the care.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 
Scroll To Top