Source: https://www.animallaw.info/article/against-current-attempt-keep-asian-carp-out-great-lakes
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 01:20:40+00:00

Document:
In the man-made channels connecting the Mississippi, Illinois and Des Plaines Rivers to Lake Michigan lurk fish with the potential to dramatically and permanently alter the biomass of the Great Lakes. Asian carp have been found in the Chicago Area Waterway System, and the effort to keep this injurious species out of Lake Michigan has sparked a multi-state legal battle, resurrecting an 81-year old Supreme Court case and a new request that the System’s locks be closed. At stake is the $70 million shipping industry that relies on the locks, the $7 billion fishing industry that relies on the lakes and the invaluable ecosystem and natural resources that comprise world’s largest freshwater lake system.
Asian carp are members of the Cyprinadae family. The concern is over three sub-species: bighead carp ( aristichthys nobilis ), silver carp ( hypopthalmichthys molitrix ) and black carp ( mylopharyngodon piceus )  . Bighead carp can grow to five feet in length and weigh over 100 pounds. As filter-feeders, they are capable of consuming up to 40% of their body weight each day through the use of gill rakes specially adapted for collecting large amounts of plankton, starving out native species.  They are analogous to an uninvited wedding guest who gorges on the buffet table (plankton) before the other guests (native fish populations) can fill their plates.
In addition to starving out native sport-fish, the voracious eating habits and high reproduction rates of Asian carp could have a harmful impact on endangered species in the Great Lakes. Of the 116 fish and 70 mussel species on the Federal List of Endangered or Threatened Wildlife, silver carp share feeding and habitat requirements with 40 fish and 25 mussel species on the list.  This means that Asian carp will directly compete for food and habitat with Great Lakes aquatic species that are already on the brink of extinction.
The potential economic impact of an Asian carp invasion of the Great Lakes is staggering. It could affect recreational fishing, waterfowl hunting, commercial fishing, recreational boating and tourism. The Great Lakes fishery is valued at approximately $7 billion.
Currently, the Chicago Area Waterway System encompasses the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, which connects the South Branch of the Chicago River to the Des Plaines River, eventually flowing into the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers. The CSSC connects to Lake Michigan via the Chicago River Controlling Works, which includes the Chicago Lock and eight sluice gates, and to the Des Plaines River via the Lockport Lock.
Taken together, this means that if Illinois is properly joined as a party, then there are no suitable alternative forums because the Court has exclusive jurisdiction over controversies between two or more states. If the controversy is of sufficient weight and dignity (discussed below), then the Supreme Court should exercise it exclusive and original jurisdiction, granting leave to Michigan to bring a cause of action against Illinois, et al. Conversely, if Illinois is not a proper party, then the Court's jurisdiction is not exclusive, thereby meaning that there may be another suitable alternative forum, such as a state or Federal District court.
Substitute "riparian rights" for "health of a neighboring state and its inhabitants," and the passage could apply directly to the facts alleged by Michigan: the method of maintenance will create a continuing nuisance dangerous to the ecosystem, fishery and riparian rights of multiple neighboring Great Lakes states.
If Michigan proceeds against the United States and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District in U.S. District Court, it will most likely allege, as it did in its original motion, that the locks and sluice gates create a common law public nuisance in that they allow the injurious Asian carp to advance into Lake Michigan.
Likewise, the threatened nuisance that the locks present by allowing Asian carp into the Great Lakes, though not yet fully realized, "will result in injuries that cannot be measured in damages." While Asian carp are not yet in the Great Lakes, their expansion in the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers has occurred "for a sufficient length of time to show its effect," if they are allowed entry into Lake Michigan. The ultimate determination of whether the locks, by allowing Asian carp to pass through them, present a public nuisance will be left to the "trier of fact."  This will hinge on the scientific evidence presented to the court regarding the likelihood of Asian carp taking over the Great Lakes in the same manner that they took over the Mississippi River, discussed in Section I, above.
Thus, because the Corps and the District have exclusive control over the locks and sluice gates, they should have the responsibility to abate the threat of nuisance they represent by allowing Asian carp to pass through them, interfering with the rights that the citizens of the complaining states enjoy in the Great Lakes.
Potential solutions to prevent Asian carp from entering Lake Michigan include court remedies, negotiated remedies, and the status quo, which is the prevention plan adopted by the Asian Carp Workgroup.
This standard requires measuring the proposed equitable remedy, closure of the locks and a complete ecological separation of the Great Lakes and CAWS, against the remedy at law, which is the Asian Carp Workgroup Control Strategy, based on the four factors of clarity, completeness, practicality and efficiency.
Michigan lists three steps in its request that indicate the interim equitable relief it may seek in a U.S. District Court in Illinois.
The clearest difference between the two plans is that Michigan's requested equitable relief would close the locks while alternatives are studied, and the Workgroup's strategy operates under the premise that the locks are to remain open to navigation while alternatives are studied.
The practicality of implementing the separate plans is also a consideration. Many of the Workgroup's proposed actions would be carried out whether or not the locks are closed. The estimated cost for implementing the full strategy, according to funding estimates in the plan, is over $74 million from federal and private sources.  The economic effect of closing the locks has been estimated to be between $70 million and $235 million annually, based on two different studies.  These figures are based on the amount of money that the shipping industry could lose due to the loss of navigation through the CAWS. Comparatively, the Great Lakes states could lose up to $7 billion annually through the loss of their sport-fishery and related industries.
Completeness and efficiency are inextricably entwined when comparing the two proposals. How completely will they abate the nuisance; how efficiently will they be able to accomplish their purpose? Will they work? The essential factor to answering those questions continues to be: Is lock closure necessary to prevent Asian carp from accessing Lake Michigan?
The eDNA evidence suggests that Asian carp have moved past the Dispersal Barrier System, which means that the locks are the only thing between the fish and the lake. eDNA testing is the method that the Army Corps of Engineers contracted for monitoring the advance of Asian carp through the CAWS and, though it is a new process for detection, the EPA has stated that it is accurate enough to be the basis of management decisions.  However, no actual Asian carp have been found in the canal past the Dispersal Barrier System.  Whether or not lock closure is absolutely necessary to prevent Asian carp from establishing a population in the Great Lakes likely cannot be known with certainty at this time. In the absence of a clear determination on the completeness and efficacy of the remedy available at law, how much of a chance are the parties willing to take that their respective strategies are correct? Are there alternatives to litigation that can resolve the matter?
A litigated resolution could take years, if pursued, and the CARP ACT would likely be vetoed, even if passed.  What, then, is left? Michigan and the other Great Lakes states could consider a negotiated economic resolution with the Corps, the District and the American Waterway Operators, the trade association that represents the barge, tugboat and shipping industries that would be affected by lock closure. Simply put, if the fisheries are worth $7 billion dollars to the Great Lakes states, how much would they be willing to pool to compensate the shipping industry for a negotiated closure of the locks?
There are many potential hurdles to a negotiated resolution. The wide disparity in the value of the estimated loss that the shipping industry could incur would certainly affect the parties' starting points. Also, the economic situation has strapped state budgets. For example, Michigan had a budget deficit of $3.8 billion in fiscal year 2009.  Politics may play a pivotal role in whether or not a settlement is reached; for instance, Attorney General Cox is expected to run for Governor of Michigan, and a payout to the shipping industry may not be a politically popular move considering the state's budget deficit. Similarly, even with a financial compensation, the American Waterway Operators may be reluctant to accept a settlement that could eliminate jobs in the shipping industry. Finally, an omnipresent barrier to any negotiation could be the parties' reliance on their positions (the locks must close / must remain open), rather than on their underlying interests (keeping Asian carp out of Lake Michigan / avoiding financial loss to the shipping industry). Their positions are fundamentally opposed to each other and could not be settled, but a negotiated settlement could be crafted to achieve both of their underlying interests.
There should be a mutually beneficial point where the Great Lakes states could compensate the shipping industry, perhaps by a pool funded by charter and fishing licenses as well as other state, federal, and environmental non-profit sources, that shipping companies could draw from to offset losses attributed to the closure of the locks. This could be a real possibility if the Great Lakes states consider that their alternative to a negotiated settlement might be the possible loss of a $7 billion fishery. It would share the burden of the monetary loss inflicted by the spread of Asian carp into the CAWS, rather than placing it on one industry (shipping) or wiping out another (fishing).
The Compensation Principle, a theory associated with the field of Law and Economics, states that a resolution is efficient if "the gainers could potentially compensate the losers so that the latter will accept the change and the gainers still remain better off."  For instance, if the shipping industry expects to lose $235 million per year if the locks are closed, and they calculate the chances of Michigan obtaining an injunction forcing closure of the locks to be 50%, then they should be willing to accept any amount greater than $117.5 million for every year the locks are closed until an alternative solution is found to definitively keep Asian carp out of Lake Michigan.
Similarly, if the Great Lakes states believe that the Dispersal Barrier System has only a 50% chance of keeping the Asian carp out of the lake without closing the locks, and that the delay in obtaining an injunction from a District Court would be too late to be effective, then their best alternative to a negotiated agreement would be a 50% chance that Asian carp destroy their $7 billion fishery. Theoretically, they should be willing to pay $3.5 billion to keep it. Reality in state and federal budgets, as well as politics, will make that number much lower, but, compared to a $7 billion dollar annual loss, a $117.5 million payout is reasonable. These are purely hypothetical figures, but they underscore the point that there is room for negotiation. Alternatively, the competing interests may consider arbitration within an agreed upon range, for instance, the range between the two separate shipping loss estimates.
There is broad agreement that Asian carp present a terrifying threat to the Great Lakes. It is equally obvious that there is a fundamental disagreement over the proposed method of preventing that threat. The Supreme Court has decided to stay out of the debate, perhaps not believing that " the principle to be applied [is] one which the court is prepared deliberately to maintain against all considerations on the other side," as Justice Holmes wrote in Missouri v. Illinois over one hundred years ago.  Prospects for the Great Lakes states in District Court are not certain, as the delay may at best grant them victory on their position, closing the locks, rather than their interest, which is keeping Asian carp out of Lake Michigan. The CARP ACT faces an almost insurmountable hurdle. The parties' best option may be to negotiate, or agree to arbitration, with the understanding that we all stand to lose if they cannot agree to a viable resolution.
 Noah D. Hall, The North American Great Lakes, in The Evolution of the Law and Politics of Water, 281 (J.W. Dallepanna and J. Gupta eds., Springer Science and Business Media M.V. 2009).
 Henry C. Hyde, Roanne S. Ross & Leslie Sturmer, Technology Assessment of Aquaculture Systems for Municipal Wastewater Treatment 13 (August 1984); Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Comm., Draft Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework 4-5 (Feb. 2010), http://www.asiancarp.org/Regional Coordination/documents/AsianCarpControl StrategyFramework.pdf.
 The Threat Posed to the Great Lakes Basin by Asian Carp Before the House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans 2 (November 3, 2005) (statement of Gerald A. Barnhart, Chairman of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission) http://www.glfc.org/fishmgmt/testimony_AsianCarp.pdf .
 Asiancarp.org, http://www.asiancarp.org/Images/Bighead_3-28-021.jpg , (last visited May 5, 2010).
 Sandra Svoboda, Fishing for truth, http://www.metrotimes.com/news/story.asp?id=14977 (April 14, 2010).
 Proposed Rule to List Silver Carp as Injurious Wildlife Species, 71 Fed.Reg. 52,305, 52,307 (July 10, 2007) (codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 16).
 The Threat Posed to the Great Lakes Basin by Asian Carp , supra at 2.
 Nerissa Michaels, AP Photo, Illinois River Biological Station via the Detroit Free Press http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2010/01/28/news/doc4b620fd8a46e5972236701.txt . (last visited May 5, 2010).
 The Threat Posed to the Great Lakes Basin by Asian Carp, supra at 2 .
 Hyde, supra , 12-14; Svoboda supra .
 Svoboda, supra : "The public sectors, including universities and state and federal entities, have contributed significantly to at least one importation of the black carp, the spawning and probable release into natural waters of the silver and bighead carps, and the distribution and use of all three species," (quoting a 2008 report from researchers at the National Aquaculture Research Center in Stuttgart, Ark., and the University of Arkansas).
 Press Release, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Agency Seeks Scientific, Economic Information On Bighead Carp, a Potential Injurious Species Candidate (September 17, 2003) http://www.fws.gov/news/newsreleases/r3/1E06DFF6-C8AC-491F-90E672EF6C2216FC.html .
 Lee W. Larson, The Great Flood of 1993 (June 1996) http://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/floods/papers/oh_2/great.htm .
 The Threat Posed to the Great Lakes Basin by Asian Carp, supra at 2.
 Lacey Act, 18 U.S.C. § 42; Rule listing Silver Carp as Injurious Species, 72 Fed. Reg. 37,459, 37,462 (July 10, 2007) (codified at 50 C.F.R. §16.13(2)(v)): "Due to the large size, fast growth rate, high food consumption rate and high reproductive potential of silver carp, competition for food and habitat with native planktivorous fishes and with post-larvae and early juveniles of most native fishes is likely high…It is highly likely silver carp would adversely affect fishes in the Great Lakes basin or other watersheds if they establish."
 71 Fed. Reg. at 52,305.
 Review of Information Concerning Bighead Carp, 68 Fed. Reg. 54,409 (Sept. 17, 2003).
 72 Fed. Reg. at 37462.
 Amicus Curiae Brief of the Michigan Shoreline Caucus Supporting Motion. to Reopen and Renewed Motion for Prelimiminary Injunction , 5, Wisconsin. v. Illinois, Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Orig., (U.S., Mot. to Reopen denied Apr. 26, 2010) 2010 WL 1250416, (referencing CNN , That Will Leave a Mark , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLFe8xfgx24&feature=related).
 68 Fed. Reg. 54,409; Letter from Bernard Hansen, Chairman, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, to Mr. Everett Wilson, Chief, Division of Environmental Quality, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Nov. 14, 2003) http://www.glfc.org/fishmgmt/bighead_glfc.pdf. (emphasis added).
 Motion to Reopen and for a Supplemental Decree, Petition, and Brief and Appendix in Support of Motion , 45a, Wisconsin. v. Illinois, Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Orig., (U.S., Mot. to Reopen denied Apr. 26, 2010) 2009 WL 6310835. See also App. 113a, Affidavit of Tammy J. Newcomb, Ph.D. : "In Michigan’s waters of the Great Lakes and their tributaries, examples of areas conducive to survival of silver and bighead carp include Saginaw Bay, the Muskegon River, Bays de Noc, Grand Traverse Bay, and any drowned river mouth with an embayment at its confluence with the Great Lakes. Furthermore, both species of carp grow and persist in water bodies from the size of ponds to large lakes. It is to be expected, therefore, that silver and bighead carp could inhabit inland lakes and reservoirs." (citation omitted).
 Office of the Great Lakes & Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, MI Great Lakes Plan , 1 (January 2009) http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/MI-GLPlan_262388_7.pdf.
 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago's Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction , App. 3-4, Wisconsin. v. Illinois, Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Orig., (U.S., Mot. to Reopen denied Apr. 26, 2010) 2010 WL 1248358.
 Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367, 401-402 (1929).
 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago's Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction , supra, App. at 4.
 Wisconsin , 278 U.S. at 403.
 Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 211-214 (1906): "[I] n the construction of said channel or drain the defendant, the Sanitary District of Chicago, Illinois, with the sanction and approval of the state of Illinois, cut through the natural bridge or watershed which divides the basin of Lake Michigan from the basins of the Des Plaines and Illinois rivers and the basin of the Mississippi river…extended said artificial channel through said natural divide of the watershed, the defendants now propose and threaten to receive into said channel or drain the sewage matter and filth of the Sanitary District of Chicago."
 Wisconsin , 278 U.S. at 419 (emphasis added).
 Wisconsin , 278 U.S. at 420 (emphasis added).
 Rivers and Harbors Act, 71 Cong. Ch. 847 (July 3, 1930); 46 Stat. 918, 929.
 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago's Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction , supra, App. at 5.
 Asian Carp Workgroup, Draft Asian Control Strategy Framework (February 2010) http://asiancarp.org.
 Memorandum for the United States in Opposition , 3-4, Wisconsin. v. Illinois, Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Orig., (U.S., Mot. to Reopen denied Apr. 26, 2010) 2010 WL 1231041.
 Motion to Reopen and for a Supplemental Decree, Petition, and Brief and Appendix in Support of Motion , supra, App. at 27a-33a.
 Aquatic Nuisance Species Program, 16 U.S.C. § 4722 (i)(3).
 Center for Aquatic Conservation, Department of Environmental Studies, University of Notre Dame, Risk Reduction Study Fact Sheet , http://edna.nd.edu/Environmental_DNA_at_ND/News_files/eDNA%20fact%20sheet%202-10-10.pdf (last visited April 24, 2010).
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lodge Laboratory Audit Report (Feb. 20, 2009) http://edna.nd.edu/Environmental_DNA_at_ND/News_files/EPA%20Audit%20Report%20of%20eDNA%20process%205%20Feb%202009.pdf (changing first-person address to third-person).
 Risk Reduction Fact Sheet, supra.
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asian Carp Briefing Package , http://www.asiancarp.org/regionalcoordination/documents/AsianCarpBriefingPackage.pdf (last visited April 24, 2010).
 Id. s ee also Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction , 7a, Wisconsin. v. Illinois, Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Orig., (U.S., Mot. to Reopen denied Apr. 26, 2010) 2010 WL 1250413.
 The University of Notre Dame, Environmental DNA Results as of April 23, 2010 , http://edna.nd.edu/Environmental_DNA_at_ND/Battle_Trackers_files/23%20April%202010%20battle%20tracker.pdf (last visited April 24, 2010).
 Wisconsin , 278 U.S. at 367.
 Stopasiancarp.com, www.stopasiancarp.com (last visited May 5, 2010).
 Missouri , 180 U.S. at 208; Missouri v. Illinois, 280 U.S. 496 (1906).
 Missouri , 280 U.S. 496.
 Id. at 521 (referencing Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125 (1902)).
 Wisconsin v. Illinois, 388 U.S. 426, 430 (1967); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 449 U.S. 48 (1980); Motion to Reopen and for a Supplemental Decree, Petition, and Brief and Appendix in Support of Motion, supra.
 Motion to Reopen and for a Supplemental Decree, Petition, and Brief and Appendix in Support of Motion , supra at 1.
 Id . at 2. "[T]he facilities for diversion of water from Lake Michigan that are the subject of the existing Decree…. The matter in controversy originated more than 100 years ago with the Defendants' construction and operation of an artificial canal, now referred to as the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal."
 Brief of the State of Indiana as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Motion to Reopen and for a Supplemental Decree , 7-8, Wisconsin. v. Illinois, Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Orig., (U.S., Mot. to Reopen denied Apr. 26, 2010) 2010 WL 1250418. "[T]he broader issue has always been about the conditions under which Illinois may divert water from Lake Michigan into the artificial waterway system that Illinois created for local sanitation purposes. That issue was the basis of the 1929 case … and is now the basis for the nuisance claim brought by Michigan here." (citation omitted); Response of State of New York to Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 1, Wisconsin. v. Illinois, Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Orig., (U.S., Mot. to Reopen denied Apr. 26, 2010) 2009 WL 6313204. "[B]ecause the new harm stems from the same source as the harm in the original cases…."; Memorandum of the State of Ohio , 1, Wisconsin. v. Illinois, Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Orig., (U.S., Mot. to Reopen denied Apr. 26, 2010) 2009 WL 6312593. "This Court has jurisdiction to consider Michigan’s request, which relates directly to the subject matter of the Court’s 1967 consent decree—the defendants’ creation and operation of a series of artificial waterways connecting Lake Michigan and the Des Plaines and Illinois Rivers, and their diversion of water from the Great Lakes into these waterways."; Amicus Curiae Brief of the Michigan Shoreline Caucus Supporting Motion to Reopen and Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, supra at 19. "The subject matter in controversy in Original Actions Nos. 1, 2, and 3 was the construction of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and how the Canal’s diversion of waters from Lake Michigan affected public rights in the Great Lakes."
 Amicus Curiae Brief of the Michigan Shoreline Caucus Supporting Motion to Reopen and Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, supra at 18-19. "As this Court has repeatedly recognized, 'the phrase 'in relation to' is expansive.'" (citing Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 129 S. Ct. 2195, 2203 (2009), et al.).
 Brief in Opposition , 14, Wisconsin. v. Illinois, Nos. 1, 2 & 3, Orig., (U.S., Mot. to Reopen denied Apr. 26, 2010) 2010 WL 1362236. "The Court will 'scrutinize[ ] closely' a request to reopen an existing case, to ensure that reopening will not 'take the litigation beyond what [the Court] reasonably anticipated when [it] granted leave to file the initial pleadings.'" (quoting Nebraska v. Wyoming, 515 U.S. 1, 8 (1995).
 Arizona v. California , 460 U.S. 605, 619 (1983).
 Brief in Opposition, supra at 17.
 Wisconsin , 278 U.S. at 409, 410.
 Order List, 559 U.S. (Monday, April 26, 2010) http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042610zor.pdf,.
 Order List, 558 U.S. (Tuesday, January 19, 2010) http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011910zor.pdf,; Order List, 559 U.S. (Monday, March 22, 2010) http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/032210zor.pdf,.
 Motion to Reopen and for a Supplemental Decree, Petition, and Brief and Appendix in Support of Motion, supra at 31.
 U.S. Const., art. III, § 2, cl. 2.
 28 U.S.C.A. §1251 (a), (b)(2), (b)(3).
 Mississippi v. Louisiana, 506 U.S. 73, 77 (1992).
 Missouri , 180 U.S. at 242.
 Wisconsin , 289 U.S. at 399-400.
 Brief in Opposition, supra at 23.
 South Carolina v. North Carolina, 130 S.Ct. 854, 858 (2010).
 Order List, 559 U.S. (Monday, April 26, 2010).
 Mississippi , 506 U.S. at 77.
 Id. ( quoting Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554, 571 (1983)).
 Amicus Curiae Brief of Michigan Shoreline Caucus Supporting Motion to Reopen and Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction , supra at 13 ( quoting United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, art. 196(1), Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397).
 Mississippi , 506 U.S at 77. "[W]e are persuaded that the pending state-court action provides an appropriate forum in which the issues tendered here may be litigated.” ( quoting Arizona v. New Mexico, 425 U.S. 794 at 797 (1976). (emphasis in original)).
 Id. at 77. "But Mississippi's argument for jurisdiction in the District Court here founders on the uncompromising language of 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a), which gives to this Court 'original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.' Though phrased in terms of a grant of jurisdiction to this Court, the description of our jurisdiction as 'exclusive' necessarily denies jurisdiction of such cases to any other federal court. This follows from the plain meaning of 'exclusive' [debar from possession], and has been remarked upon by opinions in our original jurisdiction cases." (citations omitted).
 Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, 513 U.S. 30, 47 (1994).
 Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702. The APA states: "A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party. The United States may be named as a defendant in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United States: Provided, That any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the Federal officer or officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for compliance."
 Memorandum for the United States in Opposition , supra at 30.
 Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1).
 5 U.S.C. § §706 (2)(E),(F).
 Restatement 2d Torts § 821B.
 City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 821 N.E.2d 1099, 1113-1114 (Ill. 2004) (emphasis added).
 Id. at 1115 ( quoting 58 Am.Jur.2d Nuisances § 39 (2002)).
 Glass v. Goeckel, 473 Mich. 663 (Mich. 2005); Muench v. Public Service Comm., 261 Wis. 492, 53 NW.2d 514 (Wis. 1952).
 Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892).
 .72 Fed. Reg. at 37,462.
 Am.Jur. Nuisances § 41 (2010) (emphasis added).
 Swetland v. Curtiss Airports Corp., 55 F.2d 201, 203 (6th Cir. 1932).
 Id. at 204 (emphasis added).
 Rest. 2d Torts § 821B (c).
 Brunsfield v. Mineola Hotel and Retaurant, Inc., 456 N.E.2d 361, 367 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983).
 State of N.Y. v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1051 (N.Y. 1985) (omitting citations).
 Tamalunis v City of Georgetown, 542 N.E.2d 402, 413 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (omitting citation).
 Am.Jur. Nuisances § 74; see also Green v. Blanton, 362 S.E.2d 179, 181 (S.C. Ct. App. 1987).
 18 U.S.C. § 42; 72 Fed. Reg. 37,459.
 Tamalunis at 413 (omitting citation) (emphasis added).
 Motion for Preliminary Injunction , supra at 23.
 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, supra at 5.
 Draft Asian Control Strategy Framework , supra at 2.
 Id . (totaling funding estimates for each proposed action).
 John Flesher, Study: Closing Chicago locks would cost billions , Associated Press (April 7, 2010) http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gSJLuHoTDaOTmQfBVi1Vqj0aMxpAD9EUIDJ0 .
 Lodge Laboratory Audit Report, supra.
 John Flesher, 6-week search finds no Asian carp in Chicago waters , Associated Press (March 29, 2010) http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2010/03/29/news/doc4bb10867a59bf055820408.txt.
 CARP ACT, S. 2946; H.R. 4472, 111th Cong. (2010).
 John Flesher, Supreme Court stays out of Asian carp dispute , Associated Press (April 26, 2010) http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hig2vB8kklwHw77cveBJnuGv-W4QD9FB0N204. "'We are pleased that the court has agreed with our position,' said Lisa Madigan, attorney general of Illinois, which joined the Obama administration in opposing Michigan ." (emphasis added).
 Id. "Another federal suit could take years, and a district judge probably would be reluctant to close the locks in the meantime after the Supreme Court twice refused to do so, said Nick Schroeck, executive director of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center in Detroit."
 State of Michigan, FY2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report , 8. (Feb. 27, 2010) available at www.michigan.gov/budget.
 Nicholas Mercuro & Steven G. Medema, Economics and the Law , 19 (Princeton University Press 1997).
 Missouri , 280 U.S. at 521.

References: v. 
 § 42
 §16
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4722
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 §1251
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 196
 v. 
 § 1251
 v. 
 § 702
 § 706
 §706
 § 821
 v. 
 § 39
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 41
 v. 
 § 821
 v. 
 v. 
 § 74
 v. 
 § 42