Belle Co. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
761 F.3d 383
5th Cir.2014Background
- Belle Co. and Kent Recycling own land in Assumption Parish; Kent has option to buy if site can host a solid-waste landfill.
- Corps issued a 2012 jurisdictional determination that parts of Belle’s property are wetlands subject to the Clean Water Act and require a 404 permit for filling.
- Belle challenged the JD as unlawful; district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as the JD was not final agency action.
- Historical designations of the property included prior-converted cropland; Stockton Rules and related guidance affected prior-use status in the mid-2000s.
- Belle submitted a 404 permit application in 2009; state regulator (LDEQ) indicated wetlands would require major modification; Belle abandoned the permit.
- The court ultimately held the JD is not final agency action under the APA and affirmed dismissal; it also rejected Belle’s due-process and Stockton Rules challenges as not establishing jurisdiction or final agency action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the JD final agency action under the APA? | Belle says Sackett compels finality of the JD. | Corp. argues JD is not final action and may be superseded by permit proceedings. | No; JD is not final agency action. |
| Does the administrative appeal process violate Belle’s due-process rights? | Belle argues the appeal process deprived liberty and property interests. | Corp. contends no waiver of sovereign immunity or final-action basis for jurisdiction. | Due-process claim lacks independent jurisdictional basis; affirmed dismissal. |
| Did the Stockton Rules or change-in-use policy violate APA rulemaking or apply to Belle? | Belle challenges Stockton Rules as unlawful rulemaking affecting her JD. | Rules applied only in Jacksonville District or as pretext; Belle’s property not governed by Stockton Rules. | Rules not applicable to Belle and action dismissed for lack of final agency action. |
| Is there an adequate alternative remedy that defeats APA review? | Belle could challenge future permit decisions. | Adequate remedies exist through permit challenges; not an impediment to review here. | Accord; not a separate basis to obtain review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sackett v. EPA, 132 S. Ct. 1367 (2012) (final agency action under the APA; distinguishes JD from a compliance order)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (two-prong finality test for agency action)
- Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461 (2004) (finality and ripeness principles guiding agency action review)
- Fairbanks N. Star Borough v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 543 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2008) (finality considerations for jurisdictional determinations under CWA)
- Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States, 307 U.S. 125 (1939) (illustrative nonfinal agency action for purposes of review)