American Bottom Conservancy v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 650 F.3d 652

American Bottom Conservancy sued to invalidate the Army Corps permit allowing Waste Management to destroy wetlands at the Milam site to obtain daily cover for its existing landfill.
Waste Management seeks to build a North Milam landfill on 180 of 220 acres north of Milam RDF, located near Horseshoe Lake State Park.
The 26.8 acres of wetlands involved would see 18.4 acres (69%) destroyed; the site is within a half-mile of the park, where visitors observe wildlife.
The Corps granted the permit on the condition that Waste Management create wetlands double the amount destroyed at a nearby mitigation tract; Waste Management accepted.
Affidavits from Conservancy members describe anticipated diminished wildlife viewing at Horseshoe Lake if wetlands are destroyed, and the district court dismissed for lack of standing.
The Seventh Circuit addresses whether the Conservancy has Article III standing to challenge the Corps’ permit; the court ultimately holds that standing exists and reverses to reinstate the suit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Conservancy has Article III standing to challenge the Corps permit	Conservancy members will be injured in fact by reduced wildlife viewing near the park.	Standing is lacking because the injuries are speculative and not personally attributable to the Corps permit.	Yes, Conservancy has standing; injuries are cognizable and likely to be redressed.
Whether the district court should have addressed standing before merits	Standing governs jurisdiction; if present, merits should be reached.	If standing is lacking, merits are irrelevant; the case should be dismissed.	The court did not reach merits; it reversed to reinstate the suit on standing grounds.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (establishes injury-in-fact and standing requirements)
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (probable injury can suffice for standing where relief would redress)
Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (recognizes informational and aesthetic injuries as cognizable standing)
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972) (reiterates standing concerns and ecological suffering as injury)
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982) (standing requires concrete injury and real stakes)
Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. Powell Duffryn Terminals Inc., 913 F.2d 64 (3d Cir.1990) (cumulatively substantial harms can support standing)
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (repeated for emphasis on redressable injury)