Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Louisiana Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. York

761 F.2d 1044 (1985)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

Louisiana Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. York

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

761 F.2d 1044 (1985)

Facts

The Army Corps of Engineers (the corps) (defendant) granted six permits to allow private landowners to clear and convert approximately 5,200 acres of bottomland hardwood wetland to agricultural land to grow soybeans. The wetlands were denominated as special aquatic sites. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) and the corps’ guidelines treated special aquatic sites as worthy of extra protection. The corps’ guidelines prohibited the issuance of a permit when a proposal involved the discharge of dredged or fill material into an aquatic site if there was a practicable alternative that would have less of an adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem. A practicable alternative was one that was available and capable of being done after taking cost, technology, and logistics of the overall project into consideration. Pursuant to the corps’ guidelines, alternatives to any activity involving a discharge into a special aquatic site must be considered. With respect to wetlands, the guidelines presumed practicable alternatives exist when the proposed activity does not require access to water at the site. Soybean production was a non–water dependent activity. The corps considered the applicants’ objectives and environmental maintenance. The corps selected alternatives to the original proposals and granted the applications. The corps imposed alternatives that limited the size of clearings permitted, required maintenance of buffer zones adjacent to streams crossing the land, required turnrows to be seeded and maintained in suitable grass, and mandated the application of the best management practices required by the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Louisiana Wildlife Federation Inc. and five other environmental-protection organizations (the environmental organizations) (plaintiffs) filed suit in district court, objecting to the corps’ issuance of the permits on the grounds that the corps incorrectly interpreted practicable alternatives to mean profit-maximizing alternatives. The district court found in favor of the corps, and the environmental organizations appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 620,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership