- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- New Jersey
- /
- Matter of Flood Hazard Area Verification & Flood Hazard Area Individual Permit, 1113-22-0002.1 LUP220002
Matter of Flood Hazard Area Verification & Flood Hazard Area Individual Permit, 1113-22-0002.1 LUP220002
Geography
Year
2022
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2022
Status
Permit and verification vacated and remanded.
Geography
Docket number
A-1639-22
Court/admin entity
United States → State Courts → New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.)
Case category
Adaptation (US) → Actions seeking adaptation measures (US)State Law Claims (US) → Environmentalist Lawsuits (US)
Principal law
United States → New Jersey Administrative Procedure Act
At issue
Challenge to to project approvals issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for the 645-acre site of a planned warehouse facility.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
Search results
12/27/2024
Permit and verification vacated and remanded.
The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, rejected most challenges to project approvals issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for the 645-acre site of a planned warehouse facility. The approvals were a Flood Hazard Area Verification for four on-site waters and a Flood Hazard Area Individual Permit for work in regulated areas. The court concluded that DEP “properly carried out its flood hazard area delineation responsibility,” rejecting the appellant’s contention that DEP should have considered recent studies showing that precipitation levels in New Jersey had been rising and would likely continue to rise at significant rates. The court said DEP properly approved the permit on December 1, 2022 without incorporating the studies’ findings, which were not adopted into the inland flood protection regulations through formal rulemaking until 2023. The court also found that DEP properly conducted its Water Quality Management Plan consistency assessment and that DEP was not required to delineate floodways on the site. The court agreed with the appellant, however, that under New Jersey regulations the developer had an obligation to demonstrate that it was not feasible to construct a bridge rather than a culvert as a channel modification. The court therefore vacated the permit “without prejudice to the outcome of a remand, to enable the agency to reconsider an amplified application” that addressed the bridge infeasibility issue.
Decision
–
Summary
Challenge to to project approvals issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for the 645-acre site of a planned warehouse facility.
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
Fossil fuel
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance