Docket number(s): 2:12-cv-00677
Court/Admin Entity: United States District Court Eastern District Louisiana
Principal Laws:
Administrative Procedure Act
Clean Water Act
Description:
Plaintiffs filed suit after EPA’s 2011 denial of Plaintiff’s 2008 rule-making petition. The petition urged EPA to invoke its authority to step in where states had failed to set numeric water quality standards for phosphorous and nitrogen.
CASE DOCUMENTS:
| FILING DATE | TYPE | SUMMARY |
|---|---|---|
| 07/30/2008 | Rule-making Petition | Petition filed urging EPA to establish water quality standards and TMDLs for nitrogen and phosphorous in the mainstem of the Mississippi River, the Northern Gulf of Mexico, certain tributaries. |
| 03/13/2012 | Complaint | Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleged EPA’s denial of their petition for rule-making violated the APA because it did not provide justification and was contrary to the undisputed evidence that numeric nutrient water quality standards were necessary. |
| 05/10/2012 | Motion | Agricultural associations filed motion for leave to intervene as defendants. |
| 05/10/2012 | Memorandum | Agricultural associations filed memorandum in support of motion to intervene as defendants. |
| 05/21/2012 | Answer | Defendant EPA filed answer. |
| 05/24/2012 | Answer | Intervenor-Defendants filed answer. |
| 07/12/2012 | Answer | State of Louisiana, LDEQ, LDNR, and LDAF filed answer to Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. |
| 09/20/2013 | Order | Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied Defendant EPA’s motion for summary judgment. |
| 04/03/2013 | Memorandum | Plaintiffs filed combined memorandum of law in opposition to Defendant EPA’s cross-motions and reply memorandum of law in support of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. |
| 04/07/2015 | Order | 5th Circuit vacated District Court order and remanded the case. Court held that EPA was not required to determine that a revised or new water quality standard was necessary. |
| 02/15/2016 | Memorandum | Plaintiffs filed combined opposition to Defendant EPA’s cross-motions and reply in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on remand. |
| 12/15/2016 | Order | Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted Defendant EPA’s motion for summary judgment. |