- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- Washington
- /
- Sound Action v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Sound Action v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Geography
Year
2018
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2018
Status
Motion to dismiss denied.
Geography
Docket number
2:18-cv-00733
Court/admin entity
United States → United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (W.D. Wash.)United States → United States Federal Courts
Case category
Adaptation (US) → Actions seeking adaptation measures (US)Federal Statutory Claims (US) → Clean Water Act (US)
Principal law
United States → Administrative Procedure Act (APA)United States → Clean Water Act (CWA)
At issue
Lawsuit challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decision to reject a recommended change to the "high tide line" used by the Seattle District to determine the scope of its Section 404 jurisdiction.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
02/05/2019
Motion to dismiss denied.
The federal district court for the Western District of Washington denied a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers motion to dismiss a claim that the Corps arbitrarily and capriciously limited its jurisdiction in the Seattle District under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act by deciding not to proceed with a recommended change to the high tide line boundary. The plaintiffs—three environmental advocacy groups—contended that shoreline armoring projects such as seawalls and bulkheads damage the Puget Sound ecosystem and that the Corps was unlawfully limiting its jurisdiction over such projects by using a mean higher high water (MHHW) boundary rather than the mean annual highest tide (MAHT). The plaintiffs alleged that harms associated with shoreline armoring projects would increase due to climate change, as sea levels rise and demand for armoring projects increases. They asserted that the Seattle District had adopted MHHW for the high tide line because it was the highest tidal elevation data available at the time the Clean Water Act was enacted, but that it was frequently exceeded and that data for higher tidal elevations, including MAHT, was now accessible. The court rejected the Corps’ argument that that a memo from the commander of the Corps’ Northwestern Division directing that the Seattle District “shift away from further consideration” of changing the jurisdictional boundary was a not a final agency action. The court found that the memo marked the consummation of the Corps’ decision-making on whether to maintain its use of MHHW as the boundary. The court also said the memo determined rights and obligations and gave rise to direct and appreciable legal consequences since it “indefinitely stopped” any consideration of a change to the boundary. In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded standing.
Decision
11/15/2018
Reply memo filed by Corps in support of motion to dismiss Claim 1 for lack of jurisdiction.
Reply
10/29/2018
Opposition filed by plaintiffs to motion to dismiss.
Opposition
09/28/2018
Motion to dismiss Claim 1 for lack of jurisdiction filed by Corps.
Motion To Dismiss
Summary
Lawsuit challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decision to reject a recommended change to the "high tide line" used by the Seattle District to determine the scope of its Section 404 jurisdiction.
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
Target
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance