Florida Clean Water Network, Inc. v. Grosskruger

6 Citing cases

  1. Gouger v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

    779 F. Supp. 2d 588 (S.D. Tex. 2011)   Cited 7 times

    Once the basic purpose is determined, the Corps analyzes practicable alternatives in light of a project's `overall purpose,' which is more particularized to the applicant's project than is the basic purpose, and reflects the various objectives the applicant is trying to achieve." Florida Clean Water Network, Inc. v. Grosskruger, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1236, 1243 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (citations omitted); see also Alliance for Legal Action v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 314 F. Supp. 2d 534, 548-49 (M.D.N.C. 2004) ("Once the Corps determines the water dependency of a project, it no longer considers the `basic project purpose' but analyzes practicable alternatives `in light of overall project purposes.'") (citing 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a)(2)). A "water dependent" activity "require[s] access or proximity to or siting within the special aquatic site in question to fulfill its basic purpose."

  2. Schmidt v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

    Case No. 2:08-cv-0076 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 5, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    As one court has noted, "[c]entral to evaluating practicable alternatives is the determination of a project's purpose." The National Wildlife Federation v. Whistler, 27 F.3d 1341, 1345 (8th Cir. 1994); see also, Florida Clean Water Network v. Grosskruger, 587 F.Supp.2d 1236, 1243 (M.D. Fla. 2008). With respect to a review of a permit application for soybean farming the Fifth Circuit remarked, "the Corps has a duty to take into account the objectives of the applicant's project.

  3. City Club of N.Y. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs

    246 F. Supp. 3d 860 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)   Cited 9 times

    The overall project purpose "is more particularized to the applicant's project than is the basic purpose, and reflects the various objectives the applicant is trying to achieve." Fla. Clean Water Network, Inc. v. Grosskruger , 587 F.Supp.2d 1236, 1243 (M.D. Fla. 2008) ; accord Abita Springs , 153 F.Supp.3d at 920. At that point, the Corps may consider the applicant's needs in terms of "desired geographic area of the development" and the "type of project being proposed."

  4. Save the Colo. v. Semonite

    Civil Action 18-cv-03258-CMA (D. Colo. Oct. 16, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    None of those courts had this interpretive issue squarely presented to them, and without adequate briefing on that issue, those courts took the 2009 Standard Operating Procedures at face value. (Doc. # 137 at 15 (citing Fla. Clean Water Network, Inc. v. Grosskruger, 587 F.Supp.2d 1236, 1243 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (citing All for Legal Action v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 314 F.Supp.2d 534, 548-49 (M.D. N.C. 2004)).)

  5. Georgia River Network v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs

    4:10-cv-267 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 19, 2012)   Cited 3 times

    This process—defining the project purpose is, therefore, a critical first step to the Corps' proper evaluation of practicable alternatives." Fla. Clean Water Network, Inc. v. Grosskruger, 587 F. Supp. 2d 1236, 1243 (M.D. Fla. 2008).

  6. Sierra Club v. Antwerp

    709 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (S.D. Fla. 2009)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the Corps failed to independently evaluate the practicability of alternatives

    Army Corps of Engineers Standard Operating Procedures for the Regulatory Program (October 15, 1999), cited in Fla. Clean Water Network, Inc. v. Grosskruger, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91937 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2008). Another source of potential guidance is found in the record.