SUPERIOR COURT RULES AGAINST 
NCFA IN CHIP MILL CASE

In December of 2004, the Superior Court ruled against the NCFA and determined that the Division of Water Quality had acted within their authority in denying coverage to wood chip facilities.  The lone bright spot in this the ruling by the North Carolina Supreme Court that the NCFA had standing to pursue this issue.  This is and will be important for this and other associations in the future.  The State had strongly argued that the NCFA had no right to challenge the State.  The Court disagreed and affirmed our right to represent our members.

Originally, this case started due to the NCFA's complaint against the state ruling that required chip mill facilities to acquire a special permit in regards to the state’s general stormwater discharge permits for timber products.  The NCFA challenged that chip mill facilities should be singled out from the rest of the other forest product facilities who were eligible for the general stormwater discharge permit.  

The NCFA's Legal Defense Fund raised over $270,000 to support this and other key legal issues.  

An earlier decision by the state Supreme Court was encouraging when the court ruled that the NCFA did have legal standing to sue.  The decision reversed a court of appeals ruling that decided the NCFA did not have legal standing in the case.  Legal standing as defined as having the ability to challenge the state.  

The case went back to Superior Court where the court ruled in favor of the state.  

This final decision was a change of sorts from its previous decision when the court stated that the NCFA presented a logical argument in its case; however, the court felt that the NCFA did not have the right or legal standing to challenge the state. 

Prior to 1998, the state began requiring new chip mills to receive individual stormwater runoff permits tailored to each specific site.  The change forced new mill owners to test runoff and submit the results to the state.

The NCFA remains convinced that the state did not follow its own rules in adopting the new regulations and that the rule unfairly singles out chip mills with punitive requirements. 

#####