FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL

DEFENSE CENTER, an Oregon nonprofit corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER

ASSOCIATION; OREGON FOREST

INDUSTRY COUNCIL,

Intervenors,

v.

DOUG DECKER, Oregon State

Forester, in his official capacity;

STEPHEN HOBBS; BARBARA CRAIG;

DIANE SNYDER; LARRY GIUSTINA;

WILLIAM HEFFERNAN; WILLIAM

HUTCHISON; JENNIFER PHILLIPPI,

(members of the Oregon Board of

Forestry, in their official capacities);

HAMPTON TREE FARMS, INC., an

Oregon domestic business

corporation; STIMSON LUMBER

COMPANY, an Oregon domestic

business corporation; GEORGIAPACIFIC WEST INC., an Oregon

domestic business corporation;

No. 07-35266

D.C. No.

CV-06-01270-

GMK

ORDER
2 NORTHWEST ENVTL. DEF. CTR. V. DECKER

SWANSON GROUP, INC., an Oregon

domestic business corporation;

TILLAMOOK COUNTY,

Defendants-Appellees.

On Remand From The United States Supreme Court

Filed August 30, 2013

Before: William A. Fletcher and Raymond C. Fisher,

Circuit Judges, and Charles R. Breyer, District Judge.*

ORDER

In Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown,

640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011), we reversed the decision of

the district court dismissing plaintiff’s suit brought under the

Clean Water Act. While our decision was awaiting review by

the United States Supreme Court, the Environmental

Protection Agency amended the relevant regulation. See

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations, 77 Fed. Reg. 72,970

(Dec. 7, 2012). The Supreme Court reversed our decision,

which had been based on the preamendment regulation. It

did not address the amended regulation. The Court held,

“The preamendment version of the Industrial Stormwater

Rule, as permissibly construed by the agency, exempts

discharges of channeled stormwater runoff from logging

* The Honorable Charles R. Breyer, District Judge for the U.S. District

Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
NORTHWEST ENVTL. DEF. CTR. V. DECKER 3

roads from the NPDES permitting scheme.” Decker v. Nw.

Envtl. Def. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 1326, 1338 (2013).

The Court left intact our holding that “when stormwater

runoff is collected in a system of ditches, culverts, and

channels and is then discharged into a stream or river, there

is a ‘discernable, confined and discrete conveyance’ of

pollutants, and there is therefore a discharge from a point

source” within the meaning of the Clean Water Act’s basic

definition of a point source in 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). Brown,

640 F.3d at 1070–71; see Decker, 133 S. Ct. at 1338

(“[T]here is no need to reach petitioners’ alternative argument

that the conveyances in question are not ‘pipe[s], ditch[es],

channel[s], tunnel[s], conduit[s],’ or any other type of point

source within the Act’s definition of the term. § 1362(14).”

(some alterations in original)); Misic v. Bldg. Serv. Emps.

Health & Welfare Trust, 789 F.2d 1374, 1379 (9th Cir. 1986)

(holding that when “[t]he Supreme Court reverse[s] this

court, but on other grounds,” it leaves unchanged the law of

this circuit on issues not reached by the Court).

The Court remanded for “proceedings consistentwith [its]

opinion.” Decker, 133 S. Ct. at 1338. We vacate the decision

of the district court and remand to that court for proceedings

consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.