Jump to Navigation

Adam D. Orford

Adam D. Orford
Associate
(503) 241-2642

Adam represents public and private clients in complex environmental civil litigation and regulatory matters. He has conducted both trial and appellate litigation in federal and state tribunals across the country, including the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals, Eastern District of New York, Oregon Office of Administrative Hearings, and Virginia State Corporation Commission. He regularly handles matters involving federal and state environmental and natural resource agencies, including EPA, BLM, USFWS, Oregon DEQ, and the Washington Department of Ecology. He has assisted with the environmental review and compliance aspects of numerous corporate transactions. Adam earned his J.D. from Columbia University School of Law, where he was a Stone Scholar, and served as Editor-in-Chief of the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law.

Representative Experience

  • Representing Oregon water district in first-of-its-kind litigation to halt municipal stormwater encroachments; also assisting in local land use matters.
  • Defending environmental review and permitting challenges (NEPA, FLPMA, NHPA, NAGPRA, MBTA, etc.) at wind power station in Southern California. Previously assisted in similar matter in Nevada.
  • Representing ranching interest in Oregon’s long-running Klamath Basin Adjudication. Handling other matters concerning Oregon water law.
  • Representing local business owners in investigation and remediation of contaminated properties under Oregon and Washington cleanup laws.
  • Assisting in regulatory compliance and litigation at several Superfund sites (CERCLA, RCRA).
  • Conducted environmental due diligence in corporate transactions in mining, manufacturing, and retail industries.
  • Assisted in permitting and approval of facilities and infrastructure, including natural gas pipeline over National Park System land.
  • Represented real estate developers in challenges to state and federal environmental impact reviews (NEPA and state equivalents).
  • Assisted in challenge to EPA pesticide decisions (FIFRA, APA).
  • Assisted in challenge to multistate transmission line in PJM Interconnection service territory.

Speaking Activities

  • Hydraulic Fracturing, Water Quality Issues (upcoming Seattle, May 2013)
  • Hydraulic Fracturing, Water Resources Issues (Santa Barbara, February 2013)
  • Klamath Basin Adjudication Update (Portland, November 2012)
  • NEPA and Transmission Lines (Portland, August 2012)
  • Hydraulic Fracturing, Emerging Water Resources Issues (Houston, June 2012)
  • Hydraulic Fracturing, Regulatory Overview and Trends (Dallas, December 2011)

Select Articles

Hydraulic Fracturing: Fractured: The Road to the New EPA “Fracking” Study (Sept. 17, 2010); EPA Draft Plan to Study Potential Drinking Water Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing, (Feb. 25, 2011); Hydraulic Fracturing: Legislative and Regulatory Trends (Oct. 4, 2011); Local Bans on Hydraulic Fracturing Upheld in New York State, Struck Down in West Virginia (Apr. 10, 2012) ; EPA to Regulate Air Emissions from Hydraulic Fracturing as Industry Comes Under Scrutiny (May 29, 2012); Hydraulic Fracturing Cumulative Impacts Must Be Considered in NEPA Review of Gas Pipeline, Project Opponents Maintain (Sept. 25, 2012); Hydraulic Fracturing in California: Oil Boom on the Horizon; Groups Seek Statewide Injunction Pending Review; State Considering Regulation (Nov. 19, 2012); Energy Policy in the Second Obama Administration (Nov. 27, 2012)

Environmental Permitting and Litigation: Let It Snow, Let It Snow – Ninth Circuit Decisions Show Why Meeting the Merits in NEPA Challenges May Be Better Than Fighting the Process (Mar. 19, 2012); Closely Watched Sackett Case Argued in Supreme Court (Jan. 17, 2012); U.S. Supreme Court Reiterates Deference Given EPA Pesticide Decisions (July 13, 2011); Maine Supreme Court Decision In Line With Trend Rejecting Informal Agency Decisionmaking (May 12, 2011); Construction Begins on Pipeline to Bring Rocky Mountain Gas to West Coast; Legal Challenges Linger (Oct. 22, 2010)

History

  • Marten Law PLLC, Portland, Oregon (2009-present)
  • Arnold & Porter LLP, New York, New York (2007-2009)
  • Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, New York (2006-2007)

Education

  • J.D., Columbia University School of Law (2006)
    • Stone Scholar; Editor-in-Chief, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law (2005-2006); Columbia Environmental Law Clinic (2005-2006)
  • B.A., summa cum laude, Arizona State University (2002) (Italian major, music minor)
    • ASU Alumni Association Maroon & Gold Award for Academic Excellence (2002); National Society of Collegiate Scholars

Admitted to Practice

  • State Bars of Oregon and New York
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York

Professional Activities

  • Editor, Western Water Law & Policy, Oregon updates
  • Member, Oregon State Bar Environment and Natural Resources Committee
  • Member, American Bar Association, Section of Environment, Energy and Resources
  • Vice-Chair, ABA Section of Environment, Energy and Resources, Committee on Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Ecosystems (2007-2009)
  • Graduate, New York City Environmental Law Leadership Institute (NYCELLI) (2007)

Civic Activities

  • Director, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law (2006-present)

Representative Cases

J.R. Simplot Co.: Mining and Manufacturing Facilities

We represent this large Northwest agribusiness and manufacturing company regarding remediation of several federal Superfund Sites on which its facilities are located, including issues related to surface water contamination from a previous neighboring phosphorous manufacturing plant and selenium and metal leaching from mining operations. More »

Pattern Energy: First Utility-Scale Wind Project in Nevada

Marten Law has successfully represented Pattern Energy, the developer of the first utility-scale wind project in Nevada – the 150 MW Spring Valley Wind Project – in the Interior Board of Land Appeals, the U.S. District Court for Nevada, and the Ninth Circuit. More »