Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Harrison County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

About this case

Filing year
2019
Status
Summary judgment for Corps of Engineers on NEPA claim affirmed.
Docket number
21-60897
Court/admin entity
United StatesUnited States Federal CourtsUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (5th Cir.)
Case category
Adaptation (US)Actions seeking adaptation measures (US)Federal Statutory Claims (US)NEPA (US)
Principal law
United StatesMagnuson-Stevens ActUnited StatesNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
At issue
Lawsuit asserting that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Mississippi River Commission failed to consider and mitigate impacts of opening of spillway on Mississippi River on coastal communities and resources.
Topics
, ,

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
Search results
03/27/2023
Summary judgment for Corps of Engineers on NEPA claim affirmed.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by a group of Mississippi municipalities and associations to compel the preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to address changed circumstances that resulted in more frequent use of the Bonnet Carré Spillway, which is used to divert Mississippi River water to Lake Pontchartrain instead of New Orleans. The Fifth Circuit noted that these diversions come “at a cost to the environment and to the Mississippi-based plaintiffs in this case.” The Fifth Circuit also noted that 6 of the 15 openings of the Spillway in its 89-year history had occurred in the past 10 years, with 4 of the openings occurring between 2018 and 2020, and that “[s]ome expect that matters will only get worse” due to factors including “rising global temperatures and intensified hydrologic cycles.” The Fifth Circuit agreed, however, with the district court that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was immune from suit. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that the Corps had no duty to prepare a supplemental EIS because while the plaintiffs identified “an abundance of new information regarding the Spillway’s usage and impacts,” they did not identify “pending decisionmaking regarding the Spillway that might hinge on the Corps’ consideration of that new information.” The plaintiffs therefore did not establish that there was “major Federal action” that remained pending that would require preparation of a supplemental EIS under NEPA, and as a result the plaintiffs could not show that the Administrative Procedure Act’s statutory waiver of sovereign immunity for claims of unlawful agency inaction applied.
Decision

Summary

Lawsuit asserting that U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Mississippi River Commission failed to consider and mitigate impacts of opening of spillway on Mississippi River on coastal communities and resources.

 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
Fossil fuel
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance