Tag Archives: Army Corps of Engineers

D.C. District Court Determines that Dakota Access Environmental Assessment was Inadequate

On June 14, 2017, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Court found that the Army Corps of Engineers (“the Corps”) had not adequately considered several issues in its environmental assessment (“EA”) for the Dakota Access Pipeline, and that therefore the Corps’ decision-making was arbitrary and capricious.

The EA was undertaken pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”),… More

The Army Corps Is Nicer Than I Am

After the Supreme Court decided last spring that Army Corps of Engineers’ Jurisdictional Determinations are final agency action subject to judicial review, I advised the Corps to pick up its marbles and go home.  The statute does not require the Corps to issue JDs.  To me, if the Corps is going to subject itself to litigation every time it issues a JD, it might as well just stop.  … More

Corps Jurisdictional Determinations Are Final Agency Action: Now What?

In a decision that was not a surprise based on oral argument, the Supreme Court today ruled that Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determinations concerning “waters of the United States” Wetlandsare final agency action subject to judicial review under the APA.  As we previously noted, this continues the Court’s emphasis on the practical consequences of Corps decisions.  Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts noted that the Court’s decision:

Tracks the ‘pragmatic’ approach we have long taken to finality.… More

What Is a Water of the United States? EPA and the Corps Make It Easier To Know What They Think

While the litigation over the WOTUS rule wends its tortuous way through the courts, EPA and the Corps have not been idle.  Earlier this month, they jointly issued a memorandum on their plans for improving the permitting process.  Among other measures, they have reemphasized their commitment to transparency, by making all jurisdictional determinations available on a single web site.  The web site is now up and running and includes all JDs issued beginning in September.… More

The Sixth Circuit Stays the Waters of the United States Rule: Just a Plain Vanilla Preliminary Injunction — Not!

Today, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a nationwide stay against implementation of the “Waters of the United States” rule.  The case is so weird, alice in wonderlandin so many ways, that I don’t even think I can count them.  Here are a few.

  • The Court stayed the case, even though, as the dissent pointed out, there is question whether it even has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.…
  • More

EPA Hubris, July 2015 Edition

Anyone who reads this blog must have seen the explosion of reports in the trade press that EPA ignored significant criticism from the Army Corps of Engineers in promulgating its Waters of the United States rule.  I have not seen the memoranda, but, based on the press reports, it appears that EPA ignored criticism both that it was too stringent in some areas and that it was not sufficiently stringent in others.  … More

The SAB Enters the “Waters of the United States” Fray: Guess Which Side the Scientists Support

The Science Advisory Board has now provided its advice to EPA and the ACOE concerning their proposed rule clarifying the definition of “waters of the United States” BM-NeedToKnow-WetlandBanking-GALunder the Clean Water Act. In a brief letter that can only worry the National Farm Bureau and embolden those who thought that the EPA/ACOE proposal did not go far enough, the SAB concluded that:

the available science supports the conclusion that the types of water bodies identified as waters of the United States in the proposed rule exert strong influence on the physical,… More

Muddling Through: Clean Water Act Edition

Last week, I discussed EPA’s efforts to “muddle through” on climate change in the absence of comprehensive legislation. This week, I think it’s the Clean Water Act’s turn. If there were any regulatory situation which required some serious muddling through at the moment, interpretation of the Supreme Court’s Rapanos decision almost is a match for the current climate mess. As most of my readers know, Rapanos was a 4-1-4 decision which left EPA,… More

Coal Still in the Crosshairs

Two seemingly unrelated reports last week serve as a reminder that coal remains very much under siege. First, Earthjustice, on behalf of a number of environmental organizations, filed a petition with EPA under § 111 of the Clean Air Act requesting that EPA identify coal mines as an emissions source and, consequently, establish new source performance standards for coal mine emissions of methane and several other categories of pollutants. 

Second,… More