325 F. Supp. 3d 39
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Food & Water Watch (FWW) challenged the FSA's EA/FONSI and the agency's loan guarantee for a nonparty poultry CAFO (One More Haul) in Caroline County, MD, under NEPA and the APA.
- OMH applied for an FSA-guaranteed loan in 2015 to construct four broiler houses (192,000 birds; ~1,000,000 birds/year); FSA issued a 90% guarantee (~$1,095,300) on July 23, 2015 after a draft EA and public comment period.
- FWW alleges the EA was inadequate for failing to analyze water-quality impacts, nutrient/stormwater/conservation plans, air impacts, effects on migratory birds, unusual production density, and cumulative impacts.
- FWW asserts organizational standing based on members personally affected: a neighbor harmed by odors/noise/flies/health concerns and an angler concerned about water pollution and aesthetic injury.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing mootness and lack of standing; FWW moved to compel supplementation of the Administrative Record to include loan-related documents. The court denied the defendants’ motion and granted FWW’s motion to compel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of NEPA/APA challenge to EA/FONSI and loan guarantee | Completion of construction does not moot claim because FSA's 90% loan guarantee is ongoing and FSA can revoke or condition guarantee, providing relief | Project complete; FSA lacks continuing authority that would afford relief, so claim is moot | Not moot: FSA's continuing guarantee and regulatory duties mean court can grant effectual relief (e.g., revoke/condition guarantee, require further NEPA review) |
| Article III standing (organizational standing via members) | FWW's members suffer concrete aesthetic/recreational and health-related injuries traceable to FSA's loan guarantee; redressable because FSA can alter guarantee or impose conditions | Redressability fails because relief would depend on third-party (borrower) choices and cannot prevent ongoing operations | Standing satisfied: members allege concrete injuries, causation to guarantee, and redressability is likely (relaxed standard for procedural NEPA claims) |
| Sufficiency of Administrative Record | Loan-related documents and communications were part of agency decisionmaking and are necessary background to assess whether agency considered relevant factors | Defendants initially excluded loan guaranty documents from AR but later agreed to produce financial documents under protective order | AR must be supplemented: include final loan guarantee and loan-related documents; privilege log required for withheld/redacted materials |
| Scope of relief available for procedural NEPA violations | Vacating or remanding EA/FONSI and enjoining or conditioning guarantee can provide meaningful relief even post-construction | Vacating/remanding would be futile because CAFO already constructed and operates independently of FSA | Court can order remand/conditions or vacatur of guarantee; such relief can be effectual and is appropriate pending further analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) (NEPA’s action‑forcing purpose and EIS requirements)
- Dep’t of Transp. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004) (EA/FONSI framework and CEQ regulations)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (NEPA/agency obligations context)
- Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 803 F.3d 31 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (post‑construction NEPA challenges not necessarily moot where agencies retain ongoing authority)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (constitutional standing principles and relaxed standards for procedural-right claims)
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (environmental plaintiffs’ aesthetic and recreational injury suffices for standing)
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (review under the APA and the focus on the agency record)