This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Environmental Law
Environmental Impact Report
Coastal Zone Management Act

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al.

Published: Dec. 13, 2019 | Result Date: Nov. 4, 2019 | Filing Date: Sep. 22, 2016 |

Case number: 3:16-cv-05420-RS Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Tara Lynn Mueller
(Office of the Attorney General)

Marc A. Zeppetello
(San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission)


Defendant

Jacqueline Leonard
(Natural Resources Defense Council)

Leslie M. Hill
(U.S. Dept. of Justice)

Norman L. Rave Jr.
(U.S. Dept. of Justice)


Facts

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission is California state agency that is responsible for planning and maintaining the San Francisco Bay and shoreline. BCBD and San Francisco Baykeeper as Intervenor, filed a lawsuit against the United States Army Corps of Engineers, involving Administrative Procedure Act claims under the Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, the Army Corps' dredging regulations, and the National Environmental Policy Act, in relation to the Corps' Jan. 2017 decision not to dredge all in-Bay channels every year as an alternative means of "compliance" with one of the state conditions to reduce hydraulic dredge use, and not incur any additional costs by using a mechanical dredge in these channels instead.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs argued that the Corps had changed its prior longstanding practice of annual dredging without providing a reasonable justification or explanation under the APA, and that simply avoiding dredging to reduce its costs and avoid full compliance with federally-mandated state conditions was not a reasonable justification.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that its dredging schedule was necessary to comply with state water regulations under the Clean Water Act. The state sets standards, but defendant is free to decide how it allocates it resources in compliance

Result

The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court held that there was no clear statutory command requiring defendant to annually dredge.


#133715

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390