Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida Water Management District
647 F.3d 1296
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- The district court approved a 2009 consent decree between EPA and environmental plaintiffs to set numeric nutrient standards for Florida waters.
- Florida and other agencies did not adopt statewide numeric nutrient standards; Florida retained a narrative standard.
- By 2009 EPA determined Florida's narrative standard was inadequate, triggering a non-discretionary duty to promulgate numeric standards under 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(4).
- Appellants (Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council and South Florida Water Management District) appealed the district court’s approval of the decree, challenging Phase I rulemaking timing and substantive effects.
- EPA published Phase I proposed rules in Jan 2010 and final rules in Dec 2010; Phase II deadlines were later extended with remaining rulemaking ongoing.
- The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of Article III standing and held moot claims regarding Phase I and unripe/uncertain claims regarding Phase II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants have standing to appeal the consent decree | Appellants suffer concrete injuries traceable to the decree. | Appellants lack standing because injuries stem from EPA determinations and final rulemaking, not the decree. | Appellants lack standing; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether challenges to Phase I rulemaking are moot | Phase I injuries are redressable by invalidating the December 2010 Rule. | Injuries from Phase I cannot be redressed by reversing the decree; mootness defeats review. | Claims related to Phase I are moot. |
| Whether challenges to Phase II rulemaking are justiciable and redressable | Consent decree constrains Phase II timing and harms costs; redressable by court review. | Injuries trace to the 2009 Determination, not the decree; redressability lacking. | Appellants lack standing; Phase II claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (standing and mootness, case-or-controversy limits)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env'tl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (injury must be concrete and redressable)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements (injury, causation, redressability))
- Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) (intervenor standing; 'piggyback' limitations in consent decree appeals)
- Ala. Power Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, 307 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2002) (standing may exist where multiple relief avenues are available)
- City of Hialeah, 140 F.3d 968 (11th Cir. 1998) (consent decree must consider rights of all affected parties)