The U.S. Navy was just sued in federal court in Washington for alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, Marine Mammals Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.  The complaint is available here.

Plaintiffs, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY and the WILD FISH CONSERVANCY allege: 

 

 

Plaintiffs bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief to require the Navy to comply with NEPA, and to enjoin the Navy from continuing to engage in Explosive Ordnance Disposal (“EOD”) training operations in Puget Sound until it comes into compliance with NEPA by producing adequate environmental reviews and/or institutes mitigation measures to sufficiently reduce or eliminate the environmental impacts of its EOD training operations. NEPA requires a federal agency to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for all “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,” prior to undertaking such actions. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C).

The lawsuit pends in the Western District of Washington.

 

 

The California Air Resources Board just voted to regulate shipboard emissions again – just several months after an earlier attempt was struck down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The proposed rules and the Board’s “authority” to enact such rules are available here.

Some quick problems:

Board Is Regulating Beyond California territory:

“Regulated

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Environmental Protection Agency’s 30+ year old regulation exempting vessel “discharges” from the Clean Water Act’s permit requirement.

In Northwest Environmental Associates v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (opinion here), at issue was a 35 year old regulation which set forth various vessel discharges that did not