Fox Bay Partners v. United States Corps of Engineers
37 ERC (BNA) 1684, 24 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20671, 831 F.Supp. 605 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has the authority under the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act to deny permits based on a broad public interest review, considering not only the direct effects of a proposed discharge or obstruction but also its reasonably foreseeable indirect and cumulative impacts on the aquatic ecosystem and public use.
Facts:
- Fox Bay Partners (Fox Bay) sought to construct a 512-slip private recreational for-profit commercial marina on the Fox River near McHenry, Illinois.
- The proposed marina project included a yacht club, health club, restaurant, parking facility, and adjacent commercial, retail, and residential development.
- Construction of the marina would necessitate filling approximately 1.13 acres of wetlands and involve building piers, boat docks, and boat ramps in navigable waters.
- Fox Bay applied to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on January 27, 1989, for a permit as required by the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act.
- The Corps, in conjunction with other agencies, issued a public notice of the proposed project on February 17, 1989, initiating a lengthy public comment and review process.
- The Corps denied Fox Bay's permit application after finding the project would result in significant, cumulative, adverse impacts on the Fox River and Chain-O-Lakes due to an increase in large power boats and their effects on the aquatic ecosystem.
Procedural Posture:
- Fox Bay Partners submitted an application to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on January 27, 1989, for a permit under the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act.
- After a lengthy public comment and review process, the Corps denied Fox Bay's permit application.
- Fox Bay filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, challenging the Corps’ permit denial.
- Both Fox Bay Partners and the defendants (United States Army Corps of Engineers and its employees) filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the District Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the United States Army Corps of Engineers act arbitrarily, capriciously, or exceed its statutory authority by denying a Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act permit based on the proposed marina project's indirect and cumulative impacts, such as increased recreational boating and its effects on the aquatic ecosystem, rather than solely the direct effects of the dredged or fill material discharge?
Opinions:
Majority - NORGLE, District Judge
Yes, the United States Army Corps of Engineers did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or exceed its statutory authority in denying the permit, as its decision to consider the indirect and cumulative impacts of the marina project was rational and consistent with applicable statutes and guidelines. The court applied the Administrative Procedure Act's "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law" standard of review, which is narrow and defers to agency judgment if it is rational and within its delegated authority. Both the Clean Water Act (CWA) § 404 guidelines (40 C.F.R. § 230) and the Corps' public interest review regulations (33 C.F.R. §§ 320-329) require consideration of "cumulative impacts" and the "full public interest." Specifically, the CWA § 404 guidelines at 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(c) state that "no discharge... shall be permitted which will cause or contribute to significant degradation," and § 230.11(h) explicitly defines "secondary effects" as "effects on an aquatic ecosystem that are associated with a discharge... but do not result from the actual placement of the dredged or fill material." The Corps rationally determined that while the direct fill itself might not cause significant degradation, it would lead to 512 new boat slips, which would contribute to already oversaturated boating conditions, increased resuspension of riverbed sediments, and traffic congestion. The Corps' evaluation considered a broad range of environmental, public interest, and socioeconomic factors, including physical, chemical, and biological changes resulting from the increase in motorboats, and significant public opposition. The court concluded that the Corps followed required procedures, evaluated relevant factors, and reached a reasoned decision supported by ample factual findings, thus its decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of the United States Army Corps of Engineers' authority under the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act, affirming that it can consider the indirect and cumulative impacts of a proposed project, not just the direct effects of dredged or fill material. It reinforces the principle that agency decisions, when rational and based on relevant factors, will be upheld under the arbitrary and capricious standard, even when considering broader environmental and public interest concerns stemming from subsequent human activity enabled by a permit. This ruling provides a strong precedent for comprehensive environmental review, allowing agencies to deny permits for projects that, while having minor direct impacts, lead to significant adverse secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem.
