Defend H20 v. Town Board of East Hampton, 147 F. Supp. 3d 80

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) approved a short-term post‑Sandy Montauk shoreline project: a 3,100‑foot reinforced dune built from ~14,175 geotextile sand containers (GSCs), covered with sand; Corps estimated 15‑year structure life and 25‑year protection.
The Corps issued a consistency determination under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), published a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under NEPA, accepted public comment, finalized the EA/FONSI, and secured concurrence from New York DOS and the Town of East Hampton.
Plaintiffs (nonprofit Defend H2O and Montauk residents) sued in state court (Article 78) and in federal court (APA), seeking to enjoin construction; matters were consolidated and the federal court referred the preliminary‑injunction motion to Magistrate Judge Shields.
Judge Shields recommended denying preliminary relief because plaintiffs were subject to laches, failed to show irreparable harm, failed likelihood of success on Article 78 and APA claims, and no evidentiary hearing was required; the district court adopted the R&R in full.
Key practical facts supporting denial: plaintiffs waited months (aware of fall 2015 schedule) and moved for injunction on the day construction began after the contractor had mobilized and the Corps had non‑refundable mobilization payments and daily costs, producing prejudice if work were enjoined.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction halting construction	Project violates CZMA and NEPA; construction will cause irreversible environmental, aesthetic, and economic harm	Plaintiffs delayed, Corps followed CZMA/NEPA procedures, state/local concurrence, contractor mobilization causes prejudice	Denied: injunction barred by laches; plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm or likelihood of success
Whether laches bars preliminary relief	Delay was excusable; administrative attempts continued	Plaintiffs knew schedule months earlier, did not participate in public comment, waited until mobilization; Corps/contractor prejudice	Held: laches applies—plaintiffs unreasonably delayed and defendants prejudiced
Validity of Corps’ CZMA consistency determination	GSCs are "structural" and thus violate LWRP policies (Policies 17/17A)	Corps reasonably concluded dune/GSC plan is non‑structural; DOS and Town concurred	Held: consistency determination not arbitrary and capricious; concurrence makes challenge effectively moot and Corps’ analysis reasonable
Adequacy of NEPA EA/FONSI (need for EIS)	EA/FONSI ignored stormwater, public access, habitat, sediment transport impacts	Corps prepared a detailed EA, responded to comments, revised analysis; concluded impacts minor/temporary	Held: EA/FONSI adequate; Corps took a "hard look"; NEPA claim unlikely to succeed

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard requires likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest)
Citigroup Glob. Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2010) (alternative "serious questions" standard and limits when government action is at issue)
Otoe‑Missouria Tribe of Indians v. New York State Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 769 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2014) (heightened deference and inability to rely on "fair‑ground" standard against governmental regulatory action)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (APA arbitrary and capricious standard; agency must examine relevant data and articulate rational connection)
Marsh v. Oregon Natural Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) (courts defer to agency experts where specialists offer reasonable but conflicting views)
City of Rochester v. U.S. Postal Serv., 541 F.2d 967 (2d Cir. 1976) (laches can bar injunctive relief in environmental cases where construction progressed and prejudice would result)