The National Sea Grant Law Center

Ocean and Coastal Case Alert

November 15th, 2024

The National Sea Grant Law Center is pleased to offer the November 2024 issue of Ocean and Coastal Case Alert. The Case Alert is a monthly newsletter highlighting recent court decisions impacting ocean and coastal resource management. (NSGLC-24-03-11)


Download Case Alert

  • THIRD CIRCUIT

  • Pennsylvania
    Greenwich Terminals LLC v. U.S. Army Corp of Eng'rs, No. CV 23-4283, 2024 WL 4595590 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2024).
  • Thirty years ago, Congress approved dredging the Delaware River Main Channel to a depth of forty-five feet to accommodate large cargo vessels. In response, Diamond State Port Corporation proposed developing a new port in Edgemoor, Delaware, which required the creation of a turning basin for ships. Diamond State applied for and received a dredging and construction permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), as well as authorization to use a federal project under Section 408 of the RHA. Three port entities challenged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) permit approvals. The federal district court found that the Corps failed to properly consider navigation and safety concerns when issuing the Section 404 and Section 10 permits. Additionally, the court ruled that the Corps acted arbitrarily in approving the Section 408 authorization without requiring a Statement of No Objection from the Philadelphia Port Authority. As a remedy, the court vacated both the permits and the authorization.


    Opinion Here


  • FOURTH CIRCUIT

  • South Carolina
    South Carolina v. Haaland, No. 2:23-CV-3651-BHH, 2024 WL 4514570 (D.S.C. Oct. 17, 2024).
  • South Carolina sued the federal government over limits imposed on the harvest of shellfish, finfish, and other saltwater species in the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge. The lawsuit was based on a lease granting South Carolina exclusive authority to harvest these species on lands below the mean high-water mark on Marsh Island and other leased areas. Defenders of Wildlife and the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League intervened, moving to dismiss the case. They argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to ripeness issues and that the plaintiffs did not adequately state a claim. The court granted the motion, finding the case was not ripe since South Carolina had not suffered actual harm before the lawsuit was filed.


    Opinion Here


  • NINTH CIRCUIT

    Alaska
    West v. Alaska, No. S-18458, 2024 WL 4509605 (Alaska Oct. 17, 2024).
  • A plaintiff sued the State of Alaska, arguing that the statutory definition of “sustained yield” in Alaska Stat. § 16.05.255 violated the Alaska Constitution’s sustained yield provision. The plaintiff claimed that the legislature lacked authority to define the term, as the legislative definition contradicted the one found in Alaska’s Constitution. The superior court ruled in favor of the state, upholding the statute. On appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the legislature has the constitutional authority to define and implement sustained yield principles through statute. The court emphasized that the framers of the Constitution intended the sustained yield clause to be broadly interpreted, allowing the legislature flexibility to manage natural resources while maintaining consistency with constitutional provisions. Thus, the statute was found to align with both the framers’ intent and the Constitution’s language, and the plaintiff’s challenge was rejected.


    Opinion Here


  • Groundfish F., Inc. v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. 3:23-CV-00283-SLG, 2024 WL 4723744 (D. Alaska Nov. 8, 2024).
  • Groundfish Forum, Inc., a non-profit trade organization representing five companies and seventeen trawl catcher-processors based in Seattle, filed a lawsuit against the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The organization challenged NMFS’s implementation of Amendment 123 to the Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, which changes the halibut bycatch limit for the Amendment 80 sector. Specifically, Amendment 123 reduces the halibut catch limit by 10% to 35% when halibut abundance falls below high levels in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands. After reviewing the claims, the court dismissed the lawsuit. The court found that NMFS had adequately justified its conclusion that Amendment 123 complied with National Standards and was practicable. The court ruled that NMFS’s analysis of National Standard 4, Required Provision 14, National Standard 9, and Required Provision 11 did not violate the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act or the Administrative Procedure Act. Furthermore, the court held that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and NMFS did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act, as the final environmental impact statement properly explained why alternatives for abundance-based management were eliminated.


    Opinion Here


  • California
    Coastal Env't Rts. Found. v. Aztec Perlite Co., No. 24-CV-385-RSH-SBC, 2024 WL 4520350 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2024).
  • On October 16, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted partial default judgment against Aztec Perlite Company in a Clean Water Act (CWA) citizen suit for discharging polluted storm water from its Escondido, California facility without the requisite permit. The plaintiff, Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, alleged seven total claims, asserting that Aztec violated the CWA, as well as state environmental laws. After Aztec failed to retain new counsel following the withdrawal of its original counsel, default was entered against it. The court then found Aztec liable for six of the seven asserted violations, including discharging pollutants without a permit, violating effluent limitations, and failing to adequately develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, failing to properly monitor storm water discharges, and failing to submit accurate annual reports. The court imposed $2,967,000 in civil penalties against Aztec based on the seriousness of the violations and the lack of any good faith efforts by Aztec to comply. However, the court denied declaratory and injunctive relief, finding them duplicative and insufficiently specific, respectively. Finally, the court awarded Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation $34,465 in attorneys' fees and $968.52 in costs, determining that it was the prevailing party in the action.


    Opinion Here


  • ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

    Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., No. 23-11119, 2024 WL 4500961 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2024).
  • A landowner sued the City of Riviera Beach, Florida, after it enacted a comprehensive plan and ordinance restricting the development of land. The landowner argued that these measures amounted to a “taking” by depriving him of all beneficial economic use of his land without compensation. A takings claim becomes ripe once the government agency responsible for enforcing the regulation makes a final decision on how it applies to the property. Based on this ripeness requirement, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the landowner had never applied for a permit, variance, or rezoning under the comprehensive plan, nor received a final denial. In other words, the Eleventh Circuit found that the landowner’s lawsuit was premature and lacked ripeness due to the absence of a final decision.


    Opinion Here


  • Georgia
    Ctr. for a Sustainable Coast v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, No. 2:19-CV-58, 2024 WL 4731126 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 21, 2024).
  • On October 21, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia denied an environmental group’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a challenge to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) approval of a private dock on Cumberland Island, a designated National Seashore. Plaintiffs argued that the Corps violated the National Environmental Policy Act by using a streamlined "letter of permission" process instead of conducting a full environmental review; however, the court disagreed and held that the Corps acted in accordance with the law because the construction of the dock was minor in scope, as it would occupy less than 2% of waterway width. Additionally, the court found the Corps’ determinations were supported by the administrative record, which showed that the dock would not have significant individual or cumulative environmental impacts and was not expected to face appreciable opposition from the public. The court also explained that the island’s status as a protected National Seashore did not automatically require more formal review procedures, ultimately concluding that the Corps did not abuse its discretion, and its decision was neither arbitrary or capricious.

  • D.C. CIRCUIT

  • Marin Audubon Soc'y v. Fed. Aviation Admin., No. 23-1067, 2024 WL 4745044 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 12, 2024).
  • The D.C. Circuit recently ruled that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) lacks the authority to impose regulations on federal agencies, courts, or the public. The case arose from the National Parks Air Tour Management Act, which requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Park Service to collaborate in issuing Tour Management Plans (TMPs) to govern tourist flights over national parks. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), federal agencies must assess the impacts of major actions that significantly affect the environment. However, CEQ allowed agencies to bypass this requirement by invoking a “categorical exclusion,” which exempts certain actions from environmental review. The agencies argued that their TMP would cause minimal or no additional environmental impact, eliminating the need for an environmental assessment. The court found that NEPA does not grant CEQ authority to issue binding regulations, as no statute delegates such power to the agency. The ruling also stated that the Constitution does not allow the President to seize legislative authority by issuing orders. Such orders would empower officials to promulgate rules similar to statutes, undermining the separation of powers among the three branches of government.


    Opinion Here

Subscribe to the Ocean and Coastal Case Alert

The Case Alert is a monthly newsletter highlighting recent court decisions impacting ocean and coastal resource management.

Subscribe to the Case Alert

Case Alert Archive

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

© 2024 National Sea Grant Law Center • 256 Kinard Hall, Wing E • University, MS 38677 • 662-915-7775 | Problems?   Webmaster | |