Thursday, September 30, 2010

Future Changes by Amber Popkes

Environmental Studies
Dr. David Terrell
Warner Pacific College
September 27, 2010

Future Changes
Our society is always changing, always evolving. We call this “advancing technology”. I often joke with my friends and say “if we have all this great technology, why haven’t we invented the flying car yet?” My friends all laugh and we go about our conversation. Now that I think about it, I have to wonder, would this somehow help the environment? Is there a way to advance our technology while silmultaneously saving the envrionment? How would we power these flying cars? On one hand, if we used standard fossile fuels, we would advance technology but do nothing for the environment. On the other hand, if we find and use a renewable resource, not only would we advance technology, but we would also save the environment. It’s a win-win situation for all.
Though, I don’t have the answers to my question, I do believe that we as a society can look at alternate ways to power the current vehicles we drive. The only problem I see with this is the funding. In this day and age, everything we do comes down to money. Who has it and who is willing to share? Part of me wants to believe that “big oil” and rich and famous people like Donald Trump have some sort of soft spot in their heart for the environment. Of course, we know differently. Donald Trump found himself at the center of controversy when he wanted to build a golf course on a dune habitat in Scotland. He also called for Al Gore to be stripped of his nobel peace prize-which was awarded for his work with the environment. And, as we discussed in class, we don’t see “big oil” funding research anytime soon. The money they are making with fossile fuels seems to be sustaining them just fine.
So, who funds the money for research? I much like many in the United States would love to drive a hybrid vehicle powered by corn. Unfortunately, I alone could never fund this type of research and I don’t believe I would be able to donate it every year. My monetary circumstances seem to change from time to time. With that being said however, there are those that can afford to fund. I’m speaking of those in Hollywood. Those smiling faces that walk the red carpet and keep so many of us entertained on a Saturday evening. Actors like Brad Pitt (who personally funded the rebuilding of 150 homes, using green technology, in the ninth ward after Hurricane Katrina and who has also personally met with President Obama about federally funding green housing projects), Cameron Diaz and Leonardo DiCaprio (both of whom have produced documentaries in support of saving the environment), Ted Danson (started an organization dedicated to saving our oceans), Darryl Hannah, Rachel McAdams, Edward Norton, Woody Harrelson, Natalie Portman, Orlando Bloom (Gerstein, 2010) and my personal favorite Johnny Depp have all committed to saving our environment (Depp, Unk).
So, why haven’t more actors made this commitment to go green? I find it strange that only a handful of some of the most influential people in America have joined forces to save our environment. Society puts more trust into Hollywood actors and actresses than we do our government. We talk about them as if they are our best friends. We know intimate details of their lives and yet have never met them. We strive to be these people. With that much power, why have they not made more of an effort to ensure we, the “common people”, do our part? With as much money as they make (and some continue to make off of royalties) the research to find alternate fuel sources could easily be funded. And honestly, if Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson looked at the camera and said “drive a hybrid car!” I can think of several people (mostly women, but some men too) who would run out and purchase said vehicle. It’s a perfect solution to a not so perfect problem. We come back to the question “How do we get Hollywood to fund such a research?” My cynical side says they should be mandated by law to donate a portion of their paycheck to the research. In fact, we could extend it to a certain salary, not just those in Hollywood. My practical side says that will never happen because it would mean our entire elected government would have to donate a portion of their paycheck.
I believe the answer I’m looking for lies in education. My ultimate goal is to attain a Masters Degree in Early Childhood Education. I believe educating our children is one of the most important responsiblities a person can be given. Teachers mold our society. They teach them not only the basics of reading, writing and arithmatic but also how to live. They teach them how to be a well rounded person. Many people credit teachers as their heros. As this hero, I plan to incorporate environmental education into my classroom.
I plan to lead by example. When I started this course five weeks ago, I had not really put much thought into recycling or using plastic bags. After being educated, I’m now making a more consious effort. Many learning groups have provided tips on how little ideas can make a difference. These same simple steps can help me shape young children. Things like adding a recycling bin next to the trash can, turning off lights when we don’t need them or when we leave the room, doing art projects with recyclable items (milk jugs, toilet paper rolls etc.) can all impact the way young minds think. If we teach them early about habitats (maybe explore some in person if possible) and animals they are less likely to destroy them. Armed with this basic knowledge I believe our children will grow into responsible adults. They will take over our jobs as we retire out and solve the problems that we, as a society, have created. And, you never know—some of them may even go onto Hollywood stardom, remember the simple steps I taught and single handedly fund research into alternate fuels and flying cars.

Depp, J. (Unk). Johnny Depp Supports EJF’s Fight Against Pirate Fishing. Retrieved September 27, 2010, Environmental Justice Foundation:
Gerstein, J. (2010). 14 Celebrities Who Walk the Walk. Retrieved September 27, 2010, from the Daily Green:

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Pride is not good when we relate to the environment

These are wise words that Jorge sent me and I want to share with you:

"Peace in Christ/Paz en Cristo,
Life is never without a duel; it would seem that the fight within us can be the most contentious. If I have learned anything it is that a humble heart is what the LORD most cherishes and a prideful heart is something he hates. It is no wonder that the enemy aggressively attempts to fill the heart of man/woman with arrogance and pride. Be careful with this deceitful intrigue.
I am reminded of the great loss King Saul suffered because he did not take this important teaching into serious consideration. The following interaction between the Prophet Samuel and Saul is recorded in 1 Samuel 15:22-23 and it highlights the errors that led Saul to an end full of agony.
And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
The sad reality of Saul’s displeasure and bankruptcy was due to something so simple: his feelings and his thoughts. If only Saul would have had the strength of humbleness and if he would had heeded to the Word of God, Saul would have finished his days in peace.
Remember what the LORD promised “blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5). Do not be dismayed for the LORD has never been wrong, truly “pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before stumbling” (Prov. 16:18). Therefore stay humble, be meek (Matt.11:29), for our blessings depend upon it.
Your brother in the faith,

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Reducing Our Vulnerability With Preparedness by Aaron Osorio

Environmental Studies PHS 100
David Terrell
Warner Pacific College
September 21, 2010

Reducing Our Vulnerability With Preparedness
Since the beginning of time, the human race has had a constant and sometimes horrific confrontation with nature, be it in the form of earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, etc. Even though as a race we have made significant improvements and advances in this fight, we still fall prey to the devastating power of Mother Nature on a global scale.
Nobody seems to be immune to it, but there does appear to be some commonalties amongst those hit the hardest. Typically, the wreckage is worst among undeveloped, poorer nations. But what can be done? Can society’s vulnerability to nature’s hazards be minimized?
According to the Team of the Regional Operations Department 2 of the Inter-American Development Bank (1999) it most definitely can. There are, however, several steps in order to achieve this. The first is proper planning or adequate environmental management. This refers to our rapid urbanization and poorly engineered construction. This combination can have devastating results when nature strikes.
If we intend on minimizing the effects of natural hazards, we must plan accordingly. This entails developing concrete regulations followed by means to enforce them in urban areas, with a focus on construction and adequate infrastructure. If the materials used or designs are faulty, the damage will be catastrophic. Standards must be set, but more importantly, they must be approved, checked and tested. Incentives could be provided for those who follow them, as well as fines imposed on those who do not.
In addition, continuously battling poverty is a must. It is no secret that the poorest areas suffer the most. This is obviously an ongoing global issue, and we should remain ever steadfast is doing everything in our hands to stop it. Of course, this is a complex issue and I do not mean to sound naive in addressing it. But if we can resolve, as a global community to ending it, I believe progress is possible.
Another thing to consider is the value of a natural hazard vulnerability assessment. After all, if we could develop a way to measure our vulnerability, we can then implement effective ways to reduce it. This assessment can take many forms, but ultimately it will come down to educating the public. If citizens, emergency response units and agencies work in partnership, casualties and damages could significantly decrease.
I grew up in Peru and vividly remember multiple tremors (mostly small in nature) throughout my childhood. These were frequent enough that our family had the “evacuation system” pretty well developed. We knew the quickest ways out and where to meet.
Since we lived in an apartment building and we were on the third, fourth and fifth floors, the shaking at times was quite strong. I do not think one ever gets completely used to this type of event, but there is somewhat of a desensitization that takes place after it has happened a few times.
In more recent years, I have been fortunate and not experienced any major disasters or hazards. The most recent I can think of would be our “winter blast” a couple years ago, although that probably does not meet disaster criteria. It did however, require some preparedness and hyper-vigilance, specifically in limiting driving (entirely at times) and keeping walkways clear.
Ultimately, this is all we can do: be prepared. Our world is awe-inspiring and unpredictable in nature. We can never truly know what might happen and the possible outcomes. If we are to effectively respond, we need to have systems set up and be as organized as possible as a community, state, country and planet.

Reducing Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Lessons Learned from Hurricane Mitch (1999). Retrieved September 19, 2010 from:

Environmental Shakedown: Earthquake Impact on Portland

Angela McKennie
PHS 100 Environmental Studies
David Terrell
Warner Pacific College
September 21, 2010

Environmental Shakedown: Earthquake Impact on Portland
I work on the fifteenth floor of an office building in downtown Portland. While I am at work, the Willamette River separates me from my husband and two young daughters. With the fall of the World Trade Center towers fresh in my memory, there is not a week that goes by that I don’t ponder how my family and I would be affected by a major earthquake in downtown Portland. The thing that makes it worse is that experts say that “the big one is coming.”
While most geologists and seismologists agree that it is impossible to predict exactly when a major earthquake will occur in the Pacific Northwest, they concur that one will inevitably happen. “It is assumed that a major earthquake [in the Portland metropolitan area] would cause widespread devastation and claim many lives. Normal command and control systems will be difficult at best. Centralized resource control will be a necessity.” (Reuter, 2003)
Sometimes on my commute, I’ll play the “what if” game: what if there is an earthquake while I am in my office? What if I am in the elevator when it happens? What if the building collapses? In an effort to ease my mind, I looked into the structural integrity of the buildings in the downtown area. Unfortunately, what I discovered was of no consolation since my building was built in 1979,
With 30 years of engineering experience, Jed Sampson of the Portland Bureau of Development Services said, "The problem with our state code is the majority of the things we designed for after 1993, I believe, are going to perform pretty well...but our old buildings are really going to have problems. Those buildings are not designed for earthquakes... the seismic load was very low until 1988. In 1993 we actually started designing for the seismic forces." (Zschomler, 2010)
So now I knew that my building was not the ideal place to be during an earthquake. Perhaps I would be lucky enough to be out on an errand when “the big one” hit. In that case I would only have to worry about making it home to my precious family. Surely, with all the bridges in our fair city, this would not be an issue. Unfortunately, the information I found on the structural integrity of Portland’s bridges was equally discouraging, “Every bridge built in Oregon before 1991 is in need of seismic upgrades, said [senior vice president of bridge engineering for David Evans and Associates, Dave] Moyano, but the government and other agencies have to take into consideration spending priorities when determining bridge upgrades” (Scopel, 2002). Although the Oregon Transportation Improvement Act (OTIA) that was approved in 2002 will contribute $400 million toward seismic upgrades of Oregon’s bridges, the work will not be completed for several decades (Scopel, 2002). Seismologists predict that Portland will experience a major earthquake anytime in the next two to 200 years.
I have felt two earthquakes while living in Portland. Fortunately, the largest of those only registered 5.9 on the Richter scale. Based on geological similarities, experts suggest that an earthquake comparable to the 8.8 earthquake that was experienced in Chile in February of this year is highly likely. However, Chile has been able to bounce back from their earthquakes with relative ease. Because they are hit with major earthquakes every fifteen years, they have prioritized their earthquake preparedness; this is reflected in their stringent building codes. Portland, on the other hand, has not felt an earthquake comparable to the recent event in Chile in 300 years. For this reason, Portlanders have not yet come to terms with the reality of potential earthquake dangers, so our building codes have historically been comparatively lax (Weinstein, 2020).
While the knowledge that I have gained through my research on this paper will not lead me to start living a life of fear and paranoia, I will undoubtedly increase earthquake preparedness both at home and at work. More importantly, I will try harder to cherish every moment that I have with my family.

Reuter, P. (2003, January 21). City of Portland earthquake plan. Retrieved on 09/16/10 from
Scopel, L. (2002, March 13). Portland bridges span construction history. Daily Journal of Commerce, Retrieved on 09/16/10 from
Weinstein, N. (2010). Earthquake in Oregon would be similar to Chile’s. Daily Journal of Commerce, Retrieved from
Zschomler, R. (2010, July 22). Earthquakes on the west coast: are Portland and Seattle prepared for a mega-earthquake?. Retrieved from

Cigarettes: A Natural Hazard by Carrie Adams

Carrie Adams
PHS 100 – Environmental Studies
Dr. David Terrell
Warner Pacific College
September 18, 2010

Cigarettes: A Natural Hazard
When I think of natural hazards in our society I do not think of hurricanes and floods; I think of cigarettes and lung cancer. Although the two are very different they are very similar as well. Hurricanes cause pain and heartache as do cigarettes. Although it may be more difficult to stop a hurricane, cigarettes are just as difficult to quit using. The tobacco and other ingredients in cigarettes cause an addiction which makes it extremely difficult to stop smoking. I call this a natural hazard, because tobacco grows naturally in our environment and has been used for centuries all around the world.
When cigarettes were new to the world everyone thought they were the next best thing. Movie stars were smoking cigarettes on television, billboards featured the latest brand of cigarettes, every other page of a magazine featured someone smoking a cigarette, and a person could smoke anywhere they wanted. Smoking was allowed inside and outside of buildings, train stations and even doctor’s offices. Back then we had no idea what the effects of smoking or second hand smoke were. Now we know that smoking cigarettes and being exposed to secondhand smoke can cause serious health risks like: heart disease, emphysema, asthma in children, circulation problems, loss of some taste and smell receptors, lung cancer, and so on. The most dangerous side effect, to me, is lung cancer. Cigarette smoke causes 9 out of 10 cases of lung cancer (Granholm, J., & Olszewski, J., 2010).
Growing up my mother, father, and grandparents smoked cigarettes inside and outside our home. As a young child I had no idea what the side effects of smoking were. Everyone around me smoked cigarettes, so I had no reason to believe that smoking was bad. Naturally as a child, I believed that the ones I loved would not do anything to harm them or myself. When my parents and grandparents smoked around me I knew that it smelled bad and made me cough, but I knew nothing of the effects it was having on their health and my own.
A few weeks before my eighth birthday, my grandmother was diagnosed with lung cancer. She was 55 years old and had been smoking since the age of 17. At first I could not understand why this was happening to my grandmother. She had always been so careful with her health. She went to the doctor regularly and always made sure her and my grandfather ate well, but she had grown up in the age when cigarettes were cool to smoke. Although she had heard over the years that cigarettes caused many life threatening diseases she was too addicted to quit. After a long battle with lung cancer my grandmother passed away just days before her 57th birthday.
Two years ago my grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer as well. He had been a non-smoker for almost 15 years, but an avid lottery player at the local tavern. The tavern he frequented banned smoking inside their establishment on January 1, 2009. In February of 2009 my grandfather passed away. A combination of cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke killed my grandfather. He was 75 years young.
Knowing that both my grandparents have died from lung cancer, it hurts me to see my father and thousands of other people still smoking. The side effects of smoking are not a secret; we all know smoking kills. Our society has went as far as banning smoking inside any building that is publically occupied, and we have even banned smoking on any medical grounds, but we are still smoking cigarettes everyday and still dying at an alarming rate. I think smoking is our number one natural hazard. Not only is smoking widespread, it is happening all the time; whereas, other natural hazards come and go.

Granholm, J., & Olszewski, J. (2010, March 1). Michigan Department of Community Health. Facts about lung cancer. Retrieved September 18, 2010, from

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Regulations and Land Management by Lincoln Hubbard

Environmental regulations & Land Management
Lincoln Hubbard
Environmental Studies PHS100
D. Terrell
Warner Pacific College
September 14, 2010

In this paper, I will discuss my view on environmental regulations. I will discuss what role I believe the U.S. Bureau of Land Management should play in the economic development of our society.
The Bureau of Land Management is directly responsible for the management of more Federal land than any other agency, approximately 245 million surface acres (Bureau of Land Management, 2010). As such the Bureau of Land Management has an opportunity to be productive and not reactive. There is no getting around the fact that there is a need for environmental regulations. If not for environmental regulations, corporate greed would almost certainly prevail over the safety of the nation. With that said, the BLM has the chance to be proactive. For instance, there are currently 188 application permits pending to develop solar energy (Bureau of Land Management, 2010). The BLM can temporarily relax the permitting process in an effort to spur not only economic development, but also development of renewable resources. It seems that too often only the big corporations that can afford money for lobbyist or the “tree huggers” can get any attention. (I guess the old adage is true that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.) It is time for Government to step up to the plate and do something for the common man. This can be best achieved by stepping aside and let the free market do what it does best, innovate.
My belief is that given a choice, the average person would prefer to get their energy from renewable resources. This is especially true if the prices are comparable. Big oil constantly lobbies to keep the strangle hold that they have on society. In 1990 General Motors introduced a zero emissions vehicle called the EV1. The EV1 was certified to be able to travel 140 miles on a single charge (Revenge of the EV1). This vehicle was so successful that it sent chills down the collective spines of the Auto industry and the Oil companies. So scared were they that in 1994 GM bought control of the NiMH batteries being used in the vehicle under the guise of going into production, and consequently shelved the batteries. With control of the patents, they are guaranteed that the particular technology used in those batteries cannot be used for at least the next thirty years. The current models of electric vehicles do not have anywhere near that range. This makes them inconvenient at best and downright unusable at worst. One might ask just how GM kept control of the EV1. The answer to that is simple. They never sold the EV1, they just leased it. By leasing the vehicle they maintained ownership. At the end of the lease period they simply collected all the cars and destroyed them. My suggestion is that they use the law of eminent domain to take control of the patents and let private enterprise make the vehicles. Let the free market decide.
The Bureau of Land Management can do something similar. They can set aside several hundred acres of land, free of charge to any entrepreneur that is willing to invest in planting a fast growing renewable crop such as bamboo. This would not only be environmentally friendly, it would also great jobs. This would not only spur economic growth, it would also cut down on pollution from overseas shipping. It would also have the added benefit of decreasing the trade gap.
In conclusion, I would say that while there is still a need for environmental regulations, there is never a need for environmental stagnation. That is, stagnation of the economy under the ruse of environmental protection. Big oil has had enough time to rule. It is time once again to give control back to the people. Who is regulating the regulators?

Websites (All websites accessed September 13, 2010)
Revenge of the EV1:
Bureau of Land Management:

Cration of Superfunds by Karen Garrett

The Creation of a Superfund
Love Canal, New York
Karen Garrett
Environmental Studies
Professor David Terrell
Warner Pacific College
September 14, 2010

The Creation of a Superfund
Love Canal, New York
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, better known as Superfund was enacted in 1980 in response to a serious disaster beginning in the 1920’s that was not made public until the late 1970’s; Love Canal. Love Canal, NY was an aborted canal between the upper and lower Niagara Rivers east of Niagara Falls. The aborted trench was used as a chemical dumpsite. In 1953, Hooker Chemicals and plastics covered the trench with soil and sold the land to the city for $1.
By the end of the 1950’s an entire community had been built on the site, one hundred houses and a school. After heavy rain in August 1978, the chemicals began leaching from the ground. Eckardt C. Beck reported in the EPA Journal:
I visited the canal area at that time. Corroding waste-disposal drums could be seen breaking up through the grounds of backyards. Trees and gardens were turning black and dying. One entire swimming pool had been had been popped up from its foundation, afloat now on a small sea of chemicals. Puddles of noxious substances were pointed out to me by the residents. Some of these puddles were in their yards, some were in their basements, others yet were on the school grounds. Everywhere the air had a faint, choking smell. Children returned from play with burns on their hands and faces. (Encyclopedia of Earth, 2008)
This tragedy began an intense effort to pass legislation that would protect our country from environmental contamination. The bill is funded by a tax on hazardous substances and is managed by the United States Department of Treasury. The most recent financial statements for the fund list total assets at just over $3.7 billion (United States Department of Treasury, 2010). This fund is used to clean up toxic sites similar to Love Canal, New York. Currently there are forty-six Superfund sites in Oregon and one nundred seventeen in Washington.
The Superfund acts to clean up sites of contamination that are neglected or where there is no clear responsible party of the contamination. The fund uses penalties such as statutory penalties, which can be fines up to $37,500 per infraction. Stipulated penalties give the responsible party a clear understanding of what their company will be responsible for if they fail to comply with their agreement with the Superfund. Finally, the fund can use treble penalties; it can recoup up to three times the actual cleanup cost if the responsible party fails to comply in a timely or sufficient manner.
If an organization does not agree to work with the superfund or denies responsibility, the fund will issue a unilateral administrative order which will “require parties to undertake a response action, either a short or long-term cleanup” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). If a responsible party fails to cooperate with a unilateral order, the Superfund will press charges allowing the courts to assess penalties up to and including the treble penalties outlined above.
Beyond acting as an environmental cleanup management agency, the Superfund encourages community involvement. The Superfund encourages citizens to report any suspected spills of hazardous materials and to become trained in remediation of hazardous material spills. By eliciting community involvement, the fund is able to educate the citizens while empowering them to protect the environment.

Encyclopedia of Earth. (2008, February). Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), United States. Retrieved September 9, 2010, from The Encyclopedia of Earth:,_Compensation,_and_Liability_Act_(CERCLA),_United_States
United States Department of Treasury. (2010, September). Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund Financial Statement. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from FTP site:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010, September). Superfund Unilateral Orders. Retrieved September 13, 2010, from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

Regulations by Jim Ellifritt, Jr.

Environmental Regulations
Environmental Studies
PHS 100
Professor David Terrell
Warner Pacific College
September 14th, 2010

Environmental regulations and law play an important role in our society. In their basic intent, these laws provide our society with limitations on how we impact the environment and they also offer guidelines on how to treat the environment. However, the following simple fact is true, laws and regulations are developed by politicians who are swayed by political influences. A law that is pure in its intent may actually cause more harm than good in the actual implementation of it. This type of result can be in large part due to faulty science or political posturing (as we read in the science behind the story article “Fighting over Fire and Forests” Withgott & Brennan, 2008, pp. 344-345).
Laws such as the Clean Water Act were originally designed to address current and real problems with the pollution of our nations waterways via mainly toxic chemicals. Some political/environmental organizations use ambiguous criteria within laws such as the Clean Water Act in order to advance their own agenda. In the article “Oregon timber plans in doubt after appeals court says logging road runoff is pollution”, the author Eric Mortenson, describes how environmentalists have filed suit against logging operations in the Tillamook State Forest. This article highlights the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which requires logging companies to have additional road building permits issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System in order to build temporary logging roads, as logging roads are now considered “Point Source Pollution”. The Northwest Environmental Defense Center claimed that roads built by logging companies redirected rain water and snow melt which in turn causes increased rock and dirt flows into nearby watersheds thus negatively affecting local wildlife.
In further research of the Clean Water Act and the CWA criteria for “Point Source Pollution”, it is clear that this portion of the law is clearly written to enforce “facility” discharges, not logging roads (“…industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters” Clean Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge System). Criteria which was originally intended for industrial operations, has been reinterpreted to now apply to agricultural operations such as logging. Changing laws in order to appease environmental groups with misguided agendas only do harm to the greater community.
In the example of the Northwest Environmental Defense Center suit, we can observe a result of decreased economic activity, loss of jobs, and waste of taxpayer dollars due to extensive court battles (the suit was originally ruled against in favor of the Oregon Department of Forestry in a lower Oregon court, prior to the 9th Circuit appeal and reversal). The rainwater, snow melt and dirt that is now ruled as so environmentally damaging to wildlife, are the same exact substances that were washing into local watersheds prior to logging operations taking place. Rulings such as these damage the greater good by only establishing a new precedent which will allow for more negative “interpretations” of environmental law.

Reference List

Moretenson, Eric (August 17, 2010). Oregon timber plans in doubt after appeals court says logging road runoff is pollution. Oregonian. Retrieves from _in_doubt_a.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2010) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Retrieved from

Withgott, J. & Brennan, S. (2008). Environment. The Science behind the stories. San Francisco, CA: Pearson Education, Inc.