Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiffs-environmental groups’ action, alleging that defendants’ 2017 supplemental environment impact statement (statement), which defendants used to support decision to continue their overall program of building river training structures to maintain 9-foot, 300-feet wide navigable channel in 195-mile stretch of Mississippi River from St. Louis to Cairo, Illinois, failed to comply with Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). While plaintiffs claimed that statement violated section 2283(d)(1) of WRDA when it failed to include detailed mitigation plan, Ct. of Appeals found that no such plan was required under section 2283(d)(1) of WRDA, since statement was not “report” that was required to include mitigation plan, where statement had never been submitted to Congress. Also, statement did not violate various provisions of NEPA, even though plaintiffs argued that: (1) statement’s purpose-and-need statement was inadequate; (2) defendants failed to explore reasonable alternatives to current plan to construct river training structures and minimize use of dredging practices and failed to attempt to go to Congress to pass new ecological initiatives that addressed river channel; and (3) defendants did not meaningfully consider studied alternatives or explain what criteria would trigger future dredging, revetment, or construction of river training structures.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Environmental Law