Description: Challenge to the issuance of a Clean Water Act permit authorizing the filling of wetlands for construction of a mixed-use residential and commercial development in South Carolina.
-
South Carolina Coastal Conservation League v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 03/07/2023 Opinion and Order Download Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part. South Carolina Federal Court Allowed Clean Water Act Citizen Suit Claims to Challenge Development on Wetlands. The federal district court for the District of South Carolina ruled that environmental groups could assert claims against both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act’s citizen suit provision to challenge a permit to fill wetlands for a mixed-use development. The plaintiffs’ arguments under the Clean Water Act included that the permit allowed for significant degradation of wetlands that would make residents more vulnerable to flooding and that unnecessary placement of development in locations vulnerable to future sea level rise, flooding, and storm surge would have significant adverse economic effects. The plaintiffs also asserted NEPA and Endangered Species Act claims, which were not the subject of this motion. 08/17/2022 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Environmental Groups Challenged Permit for Mixed-Use Development on Wetlands in South Carolina. A lawsuit filed by three South Carolina-based environmental groups challenged the issuance of a Clean Water Act permit authorizing the filling of wetlands for construction of a mixed-use residential and commercial development in Berkeley County near Charleston. The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Clean Water Act, NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Under the ESA, their arguments included that the biological opinion for the project failed to consider the impacts of climate change on the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. Under the Clean Water Act, the plaintiffs contended, among other arguments, that the permit allowed for significant degradation of wetlands that would make residents more vulnerable to flooding and that unnecessary placement of development in locations vulnerable to future sea level rise, flooding, and storm surge would have significant adverse economic effects. Under NEPA, the plaintiffs asserted that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to take a hard look at the project’s impacts and that the proposed project required an environmental impact statement, including because of “unique risks posed regarding flooding and development within the floodplain.”