Background

• Plaintiffs challenge the Rio de la Plata flood control project, focusing on NEPA, CWA, and NHPA implications; only Phase 1A is funded and scheduled for construction.
• The Upstream Project Components (phases beyond 1A) have not been funded, designed, or approved, and would require additional funding and review before proceeding.
• The Corps historically reevaluated environmental impacts, issuing multiple FEIS/ROD/FONSIs since 1988, with the latest actions indicating Phase 1A only is proceeding with ARRA funding.
• Plaintiffs allege the 2005 FONSI and related agency actions effectively authorized the entire project, not just Phase 1A.
• Defendants moved to dismiss the upstream challenges as not ripe, while leaving standing issues for Counts VIII and X to be addressed later without prejudice.
• The court granted the partial motion to dismiss, finding the Upstream Project Components are not prudentially ripe for review at this time.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (Supreme Court, 1967) (premature review discouraged to allow agency action completion)
• Wyoming Outdoor Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 165 F.3d 43 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (ripeness requires finality and readiness for review)
• Ohio Forestry Ass’n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (Supreme Court, 1998) (prematurity and finality concerns in administrative review)
• National Treasury Employees Union v. United States, 101 F.3d 1423 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (ripeness tied to injury-in-fact and prudential considerations)
• New York State Ophthalmological Soc’y v. Bowen, 854 F.2d 1379 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (ripeness in administrative agency review context)
• Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Interior, 563 F.3d 466 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (requires concrete agency action and finalized review to be ripe)