Source: http://mn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20161108_0001115.DMN.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-03-24 14:07:22
Document Index: 577515679

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1251', '§\n1311', '§ 1362', '§ 1369', '§ 1369', '§ 1369', '§ 1369', '§ 1369', '§ 2112', '§ 2112', '§ 2112', '§ 2112']

| Washington Cattlemen's Association v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington Cattlemen's Association;, California Cattlemen's Association; New Mexico Cattle Growers Association; New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.; New Mexico Federal Lands Council; Duarte Nursery, Inc.; Pierce Investment Company; LPF Properties, LLC; Hawkes Company, Inc.; Oregon Cattlemen's Association; and Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties for Stable Economic Growth, Plaintiffs,v.United States Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and Jo Ellen Darcy, Defendants.
Washington Cattlemen's Association, California
Cattlemen's Association, New Mexico Cattle Growers
Association, New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc., New Mexico
Federal Lands Council, Duarte Nursery, Inc., Pierce
Investment Company, LPF Properties, LLC, Hawkes Company,
Inc., Oregon Cattlemen's Association, and Coalition of
Arizona/New Mexico Counties for Stable Economic Growth
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this lawsuit
against Defendants United States Environmental Protection
Agency (“EPA”), Gina McCarthy, United States Army
Corps of Engineers (“Corps”), and Jo Ellen Darcy
(collectively, “Defendants”) after the EPA and
the Corps promulgated a final rule under the Clean Water Act,
33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq. Plaintiffs sued
Defendant McCarthy in her official capacity as Administrator
of the EPA, and they sued Defendant Darcy in her official
capacity as Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works. For
the reasons stated below, the Court grants Defendants'
12(b)(1). (Doc. No. 34.)
Clean Water Act prohibits release of any
“pollutant” into “navigable waters”
except as specifically allowed. 33 U.S.C. §§
1311(a), 1362(12). It defines “navigable waters”
as “the waters of the United States, including the
territorial seas.” Id. § 1362(7). On June
29, 2015, the EPA and the Corps published a final rule
entitled “Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters
of the United States'” (“Clean Water
Rule”), and on August 28, 2015, the Clean Water Rule
became effective. 80 Fed. Reg. 37, 054 (June 29, 2015).
seek review of the Clean Water Rule, alleging that the Rule,
by changing the definition of “waters of the United
States, ” impermissibly expands the regulatory
jurisdiction of the EPA and the Corps. (Doc. No. 15
(“Am. Compl.”) ¶¶ 33, 35.)
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the Clean Water Rule
requires them “to seek federal permit approval (at
significant cost) to use their property for its intended
purpose.” (Id. ¶ 35.) Defendants agree
that the definition of “waters of the United
States” affects “where regulated parties must
obtain permits to discharge pollutants.” (Doc. No. 36
Clean Water Act grants jurisdiction to review certain actions
by the Administrator of the EPA to the federal courts of
appeals. 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1). As relevant to this
case, the statute provides:
Review of the Administrator's action . . .
(E) in approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or
other limitation under section 1311, 1312, 1316, or 1345 of
this title, [or]
(F) in issuing or denying any permit under section 1342 of
this title . . .
may be had by any interested person in the Circuit Court of
Appeals of the United States for the Federal judicial
district in which such person resides or transacts business
which is directly affected by such action upon application by
Id. § 1369(b)(1)(E), (F). When review under
§ 1369(b)(1) is available, “it is the exclusive
means of challenging actions covered by the statute.”
Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr., 133 S.Ct. 1326, 1334
(2013) (citing 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(2)).
multiple petitions for review are filed to challenge a single
EPA action under 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1), such petitions
are consolidated in one federal court of appeals. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2112(a)(3); see, e.g., Nat'l Pork Producers
Council v. EPA, 635 F.3d 738, 741, 747 (5th Cir. 2011);
Nat'l Cotton Council of Am. v. EPA, 553 F.3d
927, 932 (6th Cir. 2009). Specifically, § 2112(a)(3)
provides that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
“shall, by means of random selection, designate one
court of appeals” in which review of the agency action
“shall” be consolidated, and § 2112(a)(5)
provides that all other courts of appeals “shall”
transfer petitions for review of the agency action to the
designated circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(3), (5).
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;On July
15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this Court.
(Doc. No. 1.) Numerous other parties similarly sought review
of the Clean Water Rule and filed petitions in federal
district and circuit courts across the country. See In re
Dep&#39;t of Def. & EPA Final Rule, 817 F.3d 261,
263-64 (6th Cir. 2016). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. &sect; 2112(a),
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated
many of these petitions in a multi-circuit case in the Sixth
Circuit. See id.; In re EPA & Dep&#39;t of
Def. Final Rule, 803 F.3d 804, 805 (6th Cir. 2015). On
October 26, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a petition for review of
the Clean Water ...