A settlement announced this Monday, August 4, 2014, requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to apply for Clean Water Act permits to discharge pollutants associated with operation of eight dams along the Columbia and Snake Rivers in Oregon and Washington. Additionally, the Army Corps must notify Columbia Riverkeeper when pollutants pass through these government-operated dams. In connection with its discharge permits, the Army Corps will be required to monitor the amount of pollution being discharged and the Army Corps will be required to identify and use best management practices to control oil and other pollutants discharged by the dams. To reduce potential pollution from its dams, the Army Corps must also switch from petroleum lubricants to “Environmentally Acceptable Lubricants,” if found technically feasible.
This settlement is the result of a citizen suit filed by Columbia Riverkeeper in 2013 in federal district court in Oregon, Western Washington, and Eastern Washington, before the cases were consolidated in the Eastern District of Washington. Riverkeeper’s complaints alleged that the Army Corps violated the Clean Water Act with unmonitored, unpermitted oil discharges from eight hydroelectric dams. The dams addressed include the Bonneville, the John Day, The Dalles and McNary in Oregon and the Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite in Washington. A highly-publicized 2012 spill of transformer oil containing PCBs at the Ice Harbor Dam on the Snake River has been at the center of this controversy.
Although the settlement only applies to the eight dams at issue in the litigation, it could have nationwide implications for the hundreds of dams managed by the federal government as this issue is now, more than ever, on the radar of environmental groups throughout the country.
From CQ.com (Congressional Quarterly) July 30, 2014
Democrats Pound Labor Department Over Farm Enforcement
By Philip Brasher, CQ Roll Call
House Democrats joined Republicans in accusing the Department of Labor on Wednesday of abusing its authority in trying to stop violations of wage-and-hour regulations by growers of fresh produce.
The department has been acting in “complete disregard” of farmers’ constitutional due-process rights by forcing them into settlements under threat of seizing their crops, Rep. Kurt Schrader , D-Ore., told an agency official at a hearing. Suzan DelBene , D-Wash., said she was “very concerned we could see these actions repeated against farmers in my district who play by the rules.”
At issue is a Depression-era law that allows the department to stop the sale of goods when it suspects they were produced under illegal labor conditions. The department settled with three Oregon blueberry growers in 2012, but two of them decided to go to court and got a federal judge to agree that the agency had “unfairly stacked the deck” against the growers when it threatened crop seizures to get them to agree to the deal.
David Weil, administrator of the department’s Wage and Hours Division, told the House Agriculture subcommittee that the “hot goods” authority had been used only sparingly against farmers — 28 times in 7,500 cases since 2001. “This statute does not exclude any sector based on perishability” of the products, Weil said. (Products are considered “hot goods” when produced under illegal working conditions.)
But lawmakers told Weil it is unfair for the department to use the authority against producers of highly perishable commodities such as berries, because farmers have little choice but to settle with the department or risk losing their crop.
Ann McLane Kuster , D-N.H., called the department’s enforcement actions “heavy handed” and said the agency needs to “make a greater effort” to work with farmers. The subcommittee chairman, Austin Scott , R-Ga., said the department was using “fear and intimidation” to “extort concessions from producers with little if any proof of wrong doing.” The department has threatened hot-goods actions against producers in Georgia several times, he said.
A Democrat who runs Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries, Brad Avakian, told the panel that the “hot goods” authority gave Labor “much too much leverage” with farmers. “It is just inherently the wrong method to use,” he said.
Rep. Ted Yoho , R-Fla., said the department appeared to be stepping up its investigations of farms that employ migrant labor. Weil essentially confirmed that, saying that the department’s enforcement priorities were “very data driven” and included some agricultural sectors. “The trend you’re describing is part of a larger emphasis on focusing our limited resources … on the industries where we find violations are the highest,” he said.
In an April letter to the department, the advocacy group Farmworker Justice said the hot-goods authority should be used more often to reduce “widespread legality, and to protect both farmworkers and law-abiding employers from those employers that seek an unfair advantage by violating the law.”
Source: CQ News
© 2014 CQ Roll Call All Rights Reserved.
From The Capital Press: http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20140424/judge-throws-out-hot-goods-settlements
A federal judge has upheld a previous ruling that the U.S. Labor Department unlawfully coerced farmers into settling allegations of “hot goods” labor law violations.
Earlier this year, a magistrate judge recommended vacating the deals, under which three Oregon farms paid $240,000 in alleged back wages and penalties.
The Labor Department accused the farmers of paying pickers below the minimum wage in 2012 and declared the blueberries “hot goods” that can’t be shipped to buyers.
To avoid having the fruit spoil, the growers paid the settlements.
However, two of the farms — Pan-American Berry Growers and B&G Ditchen — eventually sought to have the deals overturned.
In January, U.S. Magistrate Judge Coffin agreed with the farmers that they had signed the consent decrees under economic duress and recommended invalidating the deals.
The DOL challenged this finding before U.S. District Judge Michael McShane, but he has now rejected the agency’s arguments and vacated the settlements.
In an April 24 order, McShane said the situation involved a “highly perishable product at peak harvest,” so any shipping delay “threatened to cripple the growers.”
“Under these circumstances, defendants had no choice but to agree to the consent judgments,” said McShane.
The judge also agreed with the finding that DOL had changed the implementation of its hot goods policy.
In the past, the agency allowed farms to pay the disputed amount into an escrow account if they chose to fight the allegations of labor law violations.
In this case, DOL officials did not offer the escrow option and required the growers to waive their right to appeal the findings.
“Although the government’s use of the hot goods authority is authorized by statute to resolve wage and hour violations, applying such authority in this situation, in effect, prevented defendants from having their day in court,” according to the previous ruling from Coffin.
Yesterday, March 25, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jointly released a proposed rule to clarify what constitutes “waters of the United States” for purposes of Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Due to a series of lawsuits and Supreme Court decisions, determining which upstream waters fell under Clean Water Act protections became so confusing and uncertain that stakeholders and the public requested a rulemaking to clarify the issue.
The EPA’s press release states that the definition in the proposed rule is consistent with the Supreme Court’s narrow reading of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Generally, apart from the more obvious protected waterways (e.g. navigable rivers and streams, interstate waters, territorial seas), the protections extend to:
- Impoundments of a traditional navigable water, interstate water, the territorial seas or a tributary;
- Tributaries of traditional navigable water, interstate water, the territorial seas or impoundment (including perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral waterways and waterways that at some point flow through a culvert, pipe, etc.);
- All waters, including wetlands, adjacent to (i.e. integrally linked to chemical, physical or biological functions of) a traditional navigable water, interstate water, the territorial seas, impoundments or tributary; and
- Other waters, including wetlands, that when evaluated on a case-specific basis, have a “significant nexus” to a traditional navigable water, interstate water or the territorial seas either alone, or in combination with other similarly situated waters, including wetlands.
“Significant nexus,” as it relates to this last category, means that a water, alone or in combination with other similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affects the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the territorial seas. The EPA and Army Corps are specifically requesting comments that might help streamline this analysis to avoid or limit case-specific assessments.
Existing exemptions and exclusions for agriculture remain in place in the proposed rule. An interpretive rule, prepared in coordination with U.S. Department of Agriculture, ensures conservation practices that protect or improve water quality will not be subject to Section 404 dredge-and-fill permits.
Early responses to the proposed rule appear to be varied. Some, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, believe it has expanded federal jurisdiction over the nation’s water. Others think it will provide positive economic impact by better protecting headwaters and providing clarity. Given the mixed response, it is likely the proposed rule will undergo additional edits before it is finalized.
For additional details regarding what the proposed rule does and does not do, see the EPA website on “Waters of the United States.” Also available for review on that website is a pre-publication copy of the 371-page proposed rule.
If you have any questions, please contact the author of this article, Kate Moore at KMoore@dunncarney.com.
California’s current drought could possibly be the worst in modern times. In response to this water crisis, California’s Governor, Jerry Brown, signed legislation last weekend to provide $687 million in drought relief. In addition to providing immediate relief, the legislation is also targeted at efforts to make more water available in the future through storm water recapturing, expanding the use of recycled water, better management of groundwater storage, and water conservation measures. It also includes a program to deal with contaminated groundwater, which will increase water availability.
Like our neighbor to the south, agriculture plays a large role in Oregon’s and Washington’s economies. While this is by no means the first time California has seen drought, climate change models predict a continuous decrease in winter snow pack throughout the west, which means less water is available to use during the summer, when demands are highest. The Oregon Climate Change Research Institute recently released a report on the impacts of climate change in the Northwest, which can be found here. That report indicates that “as snow accumulation diminishes, spring peak flows shift earlier, winter flow increases, and late-summer flow decreases,” meaning that “dry years are drier everywhere.” Decreased snowpack and increased drought will inevitably impact agriculture and other water resource users.
To address these concerns, Oregon’s legislature passed SB 839 in 2013. This bill, which I spoke about at Dunn Carney’s Ag Summit in January, provides funding for water supply development. If you have questions about this bill and what opportunities it might provide, please do not hesitate to contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The public will again have the opportunity to comment on the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal to take the Gray Wolf off the Endangered Species list. The Service has revised the proposed rule to incorporate the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) peer review of the science supporting the delisting proposal. The NCEAS report concluded the Service did not consider the best available science when proposing to delist the Gray Wolf. Public comment is reopened so the Service may get feedback on the entire proposal, including the NCEAS report. In addition to delisting the Gray Wolf, the proposed rule will list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies under the Endangered Species Act.
Regional populations of Gray Wolves have successfully recovered and been delisted in the western Great Lakes states and northern Rockies. The current rule proposes to delist the Gray Wolf throughout the United States. Prior updates covered this issue.
This comment period is open from February 10 to March 27, 2014. Comments may be submitted online at http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073-43030.
Judge: ‘Hot goods’ settlements should be vacated
By Mateusz Perkowski at Capital Press
Pan-American Berry Growers produces blueberries near Salem, Ore. A federal magistrate judge said the farm was forced into signing a financial settlement with the U.S. Labor Department under duress and the deal should be overturned.
A federal judge has recommended that “hot goods” settlements between two Oregon blueberry farms and the U.S. Labor Department be overturned.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin has recommended vacating the deals because the growers signed them under economic duress.
The deals “unfairly stacked the deck” against the farms, which faced the “potential loss of millions of dollars’ worth of berries” if they didn’t capitulate to the agency’s demands, Coffin said in his decision.
In 2012, the farms — Pan-American Berry Growers and B&G Ditchen — paid the agency $220,000 to settle allegations of minimum wage law violations.
The growers claimed they were coerced by the agency, which threatened to halt shipment of their blueberry crops under the “hot goods” provision of federal labor law.
The Labor Department also notified the farms’ customers that the crop was subject to the “hot goods” provision, which allows the agency to block shipment of unlawfully produced goods.
Coffin said the DOL’s hot goods objection “effectively eliminates any potential market for the goods in question” until the threat is lifted.
Due to the perishable nature of the blueberries, the farms “were left with no choice but to accept the judgments,” Coffin said.
Under the settlement deals, the farms also had to waive their rights to appeal the agency’s findings.
The judge held that the agency’s actions amounted to misconduct because the farmers signed the deals against their will.
“Although the government’s use of the hot goods authority is authorized by statute to resolve wage and hour violations, applying such authority in this situation, in effect, prevented defendants from having their day in court,” he said.
Coffin also said he could “think of no good reason” the Labor Department didn’t allow the farms to place the $220,000 in an escrow account while they challenged the agency’s findings.
The agency exercised “heavy handed leverage,” forcing the farms to endure major financial losses “simply to engage in the judicial process,” he said.
The Department of Labor had argued that the farms waited too long to fight the deals in court.
They waited nearly a year to oppose the judgments, when they could have sought an injunction immediately, the agency argued.
The judge rejected that argument, finding that it made sense for the growers to seek more information before resorting to litigation.
Attacking the judgments immediately “could have had uncertain repercussions for the defendants in any future interactions with the DOL in view of its more aggressive tactics,” he said.
The Labor Department must object to Coffin’s findings by Feb. 3, or else the agency loses its right to challenge the opinion.
If the agency objects, the order vacating the settlements must be finalized by U.S. District Judge Michael McShane.
“The Department of Labor is reviewing the ruling and considering its options,” said agency spokesman Jose Carnevali in an email.
The opinion sends a very strong message that DOL violated the farms’ due process rights and should never do so again, said Dave Dillon, executive vice president of the Oregon Farm Bureau.
“If we would have written the ruling, I’m not sure it could have been any better,” Dillon said.
Steve Erickson, CEO of Pan-American Berry Growers, said he’s glad the farms stood up for themselves against the agency.
“We are ecstatic that the judge backed us up,” he said.
The growers aim to provide decent wages for their workers and were frustrated not to be able to defend themselves against DOL’s accusations, he said.
The ruling will probably discourage the agency from using its hot goods powers in such a coercive fashion in the future, said Tim Bernasek, attorney for the farms.
“I would be very surprised if they tried these heavy handed tactics,” he said.
While it’s very rare for a consent decree to be overturned, the judge in this case solidly based his decision on legal precedent, Bernasek said.
The ruling probably won’t be significantly modified or reversed by McShane, he said.
It’s possible the Labor Department will challenge the decision before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
However, DOL may want to avoid such an appeal — if 9th Circuit ruled against the agency, the decision would become legal precedent across its large jurisdiction, Bernasek said.