Save Our Community v. USEPA, Civ. A. No. 3-90-0799-H.
Decision Date | 03 May 1990 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 3-90-0799-H. |
Citation | 741 F. Supp. 605 |
Parties | SAVE OUR COMMUNITY and the City of Ferris, Texas, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Frederick W. Addison, III and Elizabeth E. Mack, Locke Purnell Rain Harrell, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiffs.
(EPA) Michael D. Rowe, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Land & Natural Resources Div., Washington, D.C., (COE) Rebecca Gregory, U.S. Dept. of Justice, U.S. Attorney's Office, Dallas, Tex., (TRINITY) Jeff Civins, Vinson & Elkins, Austin, Tex., for defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenges the draining of several ponds located on the proposed site of a landfill expansion. Plaintiffs, a citizens association and the City of Ferris, Texas, seek a declaratory judgment that Defendant Waste Management, Inc. is in violation of the Clean Water Act by its failure to obtain a "404(b)" permit prior to the commencement of draining. Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency have either: (1) failed to perform a mandatory duty to enforce the § 404(b) permit provisions or, (2) incorrectly interpreted the Clean Water Act by determining that draining is not a regulated activity.
The Court granted Plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order on April 3, 1990. Plaintiffs now move for a preliminary injunction. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Complaint ("Complaint") and Memorandum in Support of Application for Preliminary Injunction ("Plaintiffs' Memorandum"), filed April 2, 1990; Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum, filed April 9, 1990; Defendant Waste Management, Inc.'s Response, filed April 16, 1990; Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed April 16, 1990;1 Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant Waste Management, Inc.'s Response, filed April 18, 1990; Defendant Waste Management, Inc.'s Response to Plaintiffs' Reply, filed April 23, 1990; and Plaintiffs' Response to Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed April 23, 1990.
The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Any findings which constitute conclusions or conclusions which constitute findings should be deemed the other, as appropriate.
Jurisdiction of the Court is pursuant to the citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1).2 Section 1365(a)(1) allows a private right of action against persons allegedly violating certain provisions of the CWA. The Court also possesses jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704 ("APA"), which provides judicial review to a party adversely affected or aggrieved by final agency action, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 which provide jurisdiction for a declaratory judgment proceeding.
The Corps and EPA have made a determination in this case that they do not have the legal jurisdiction or authority to require a § 404(b) permit where the only activity conducted on a legally-designated wetland is drainage. See Courts' Finding of Fact # 17.3 This determination constitutes final agency action under the CWA subject to this Court's review. 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704; National Wildlife Federation v. Laubscher, 662 F.Supp. 548, 550 (S.D. Tex.1987) ( ).4
Empowered to review the Corps' determination, the Court must abide by the deferential standards defined in 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D). These provisions require the Court to set aside findings, conclusions, and actions of an agency that are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law, or that fail to meet statutory, procedural or constitutional requirements. Avoyelles III, supra, 715 F.2d at 904 ( ).
Plaintiffs, a Texas city and a citizens association, each assert standing as "representational organizations" in this cause pursuant to the citizen's suit provisions of the CWA, 33 U.S.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Save Our Community v. U.S. E.P.A.
...draining activity. Nonetheless, on May 3, 1990, the district court rendered its decision in a published opinion, Save Our Community v. EPA, 741 F.Supp. 605, 617 (N.D.Tex.1990), enjoining Trinity from "draining, dredging, building on, discharging into or otherwise altering, by any means, the......
- Frey v. Amoco Production Co., Civ. A. No. 88-1622.
-
Can Wetland Property Be Developed? Regulated Activities and Statutory Exemptions
...the efect of destroying or degrading an area of waters of the United States.” 86 71. 971 F.2d 1155, 22 ELR 21532 (5th Cir. 1992). 72. 741 F. Supp. 605, 21 ELR 20046 (N.D. Tex. 1990). 73. Save Our Community , 971 F.2d at 1163. 74. 715 F.2d 897, 13 ELR 20942 (5th Cir. 1983). 75. 711 F.2d 634,......
-
Can Wetland Property Be Developed? Regulated Activities and Statutory Exemptions
...the CWA. he same conclusion is found in Abenaki Nation of Mississippi v. Hughes 79 68. 971 F.2d 1155, 22 ELR 21532 (5th Cir. 1992). 69. 741 F. Supp. 605, 21 ELR 20046 (N.D. Tex. 1990). 70. Save Our Community , 971 F.2d at 1163. 71. 715 F.2d 897, 13 ELR 20942 (5th Cir. 1983). 72. 711 F.2d 63......