New York v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 896 F. Supp. 2d 180

DRN Plaintiffs and NYS sue Federal Defendants and DRBC over alleged NEPA obligations during DRBC’s moratorium on natural gas development in the Delaware River Basin.
DRBC is a basin-wide regulatory body created by the Delaware River Basin Compact; dispute centers on whether DRBC is a federal agency, a federal-interstate compact agency, or neither for purposes of NEPA enforcement.
NEPA requires an environmental impact statement for federal actions; DRBC had historically applied NEPA but suspended its own NEPA regulations in 1980 and repealed them in 1997, relying on federal lead agencies.
Hydrofracking in the Delaware River Basin could affect water resources, potentially triggering DRBC review and NEPA considerations; a moratorium on natural gas development has been in place since 2010–2011.
Plaintiffs assert organizational and quasi-sovereign interests and seek to enforce NEPA via a general waiver of sovereign immunity; Defendants move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and, alternatively, for summary judgment; plaintiffs cross-move for partial summary judgment on liability.
The court grants the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice; no concrete injury-in-fact is shown and the claims are not ripe at this stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sovereign immunity waiver applicability	Plaintiffs rely on 5 U.S.C. § 702 to waive sovereign immunity for equitable NEPA-related relief.	§ 702 waives only APA-based claims or those seeking non-monetary relief in APA contexts; plaintiffs fail to plead a valid final action.	Waiver applies to equitable actions against agencies generally; not necessary to plead a valid APA final action.
Standing of NYS and NGOs	NY has proprietary/quasi-sovereign and NGO members’ injuries plus organizational interests in the Upper Delaware Basin.	No concrete injury-in-fact shown; NEPA procedural nature and lack of final agency action prevent standing.	No Article III standing; plaintiffs lack injury-in-fact tied to a final, adverse agency action.
Ripeness (prudential) of NEPA claims	Claims are ripe due to ongoing NEPA process and risk of uninformed decision-making.	Drawn-out, speculative; no final action or imminent harm; prudential ripeness bars review.	Claims not prudentially ripe; delay warranted until DRBC completes final regulations (if any).

Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (waiver supports equitable actions against agencies; not limited to APA claims)
United States v. City of Detroit, 329 F.3d 515 (6th Cir. 2003) (broad construction of § 702 waiver for non-monetary relief)
Presbyterian Church v. United States, 870 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1989) (scope of standing and sovereign interests for state actors)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements; injury-in-fact, causation, redressability)
Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 446 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2006) (injury-in-fact in NEPA without final agency action; administrative delay concerns)
Ohio Forestry Ass’n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998) (ripeness considerations in NEPA-like challenges; dicta cited on finality and timing)
New York Public Interest Research Group v. Whitman, 321 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2003) (standing based on risk from unregulated pollution; relevant to procedural challenges)
LaFleur v. Whitman, 300 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) (standing where proximity and exposure implicate health risks)
Baur v. Veneman, 352 F.3d 625 (2d Cir. 2003) (injury from risk of exposure supports standing; requires credible risk)
Amnesty Int’l v. Clapper, 638 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2011) (standing based on prospective government action and realistic danger of direct injury)