Food & Water Watch v. AGRI, 1 F.4th 1112

In 2015 the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) issued a loan guarantee to back a $1.217M loan to build One More Haul poultry farm in Caroline County, Maryland, after publishing an Environmental Assessment (EA) and issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The farm became operational in Fall 2016 with four poultry houses, housing ~192,000 birds at a time and producing over 1,000,000 birds annually.
In 2017 Food & Water Watch (an environmental nonprofit) sued the USDA/FSA under NEPA and the APA, alleging the Agency should have prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) rather than an EA.
The district court found Food & Water Watch had associational standing and, on the merits, granted summary judgment to the Agency concluding the EA satisfied NEPA.
On appeal the D.C. Circuit reviewed standing de novo and held Food & Water Watch lacked associational standing because it failed to show redressability — vacating the loan guarantee was unlikely to change the farm’s operation given the independent, speculative choices of the lender and farmer.
The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; it did not reach the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Associational standing / redressability	Vacatur of FSA guarantee would force a new NEPA process and likely produce additional environmental conditions that would mitigate members' harms	Vacatur would not likely change farm operations because whether to seek a new guarantee depends on independent choices by lender/farmer; plaintiff offered no evidence those parties would reapply	No standing: plaintiff failed to show redressability; speculative third‑party actions cannot support Article III jurisdiction
Adequacy of EA under NEPA (merits)	EA was insufficient and an EIS was required	EA and FONSI were reasonable and satisfied NEPA	Not decided by the court (case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction)

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing framework; redressability and injury requirements)
Village of Bensenville v. FAA, 457 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (redressability requires likely, not speculative, relief)
Bennett v. Donovan, 703 F.3d 582 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (example where lenders' responses to agency action were sufficiently certain for standing)
St. John’s United Church of Christ v. FAA, 520 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (procedural‑injury redressability limits; agency action vs. third‑party choices)
Renal Physicians Ass’n v. HHS, 489 F.3d 1267 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (government action may cause harm that a favorable ruling cannot undo)
Affum v. United States, 566 F.3d 1150 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (de novo review of standing at summary judgment)
Andrus v. Sierra Club, 442 U.S. 347 (1979) (treatment of CEQ guidance/regulations in judicial review)
Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, 866 F.3d 451 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (separation‑of‑powers question about agency rulemaking authority)
Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976) (discussion of CEQ guidance and binding effect)