Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

About this case

Filing year
2019
Status
Failure to reinitiate consultation found to be arbitrary and capricious.
Docket number
2:19-cv-14199
Court/admin entity
United StatesUnited States Federal CourtsUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (S.D. Fla.)
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims (US)Endangered Species Act and Other Wildlife Protection Statutes (US)Federal Statutory Claims (US)NEPA (US)
Principal law
United StatesAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)United StatesEndangered Species Act (ESA)United StatesNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
At issue
Challenge to the management of Lake Okeechobee under the Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule (LORS).
Topics
, ,

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
Search results
08/28/2020
Failure to reinitiate consultation found to be arbitrary and capricious.
The federal district court for the Southern District of Florida held that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously when they failed to reinitiate consultation under the Endangered Species Act regarding the effects of red and blue-green algae on endangered West Indian Manatees in connection with releases from Lake Okeechobee under the Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule (LORS). The decision does not mention climate change, but the plaintiffs’ allegations included that past analyses of LORS under the ESA “entirely failed to consider how climate change might affect LORS and harmful algal blooms.” The plaintiffs also asserted a claim under the National Environmental Policy Act that was not a subject of this decision.
Decision
06/11/2019
Complaint filed.
Three environmental organizations filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Southern District of Florida asserting that the federal defendants were violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by continuing to manage Lake Okeechobee under the Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule (LORS) and allowing “unmitigated releases of Lake Okeechobee water into the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers and estuaries.” The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that past analyses of LORS under NEPA and the ESA “entirely failed to consider how climate change might affect LORS and harmful algal blooms.” They asserted that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was violating NEPA by failing to supplement its LORS NEPA analysis with “significant new information” regarding climate change impacts and toxic algae. They also asserted that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service were violating the ESA and the APA by failing to consider climate change effects.
Complaint

Summary

Challenge to the management of Lake Okeechobee under the Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule (LORS).

 Topics mentioned most in this case  
Beta

See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more

Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance