State of North Carolina v. Hudson

731 F. Supp. 1261 (1990)

From our private database of 47,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

State of North Carolina v. Hudson

United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
731 F. Supp. 1261 (1990)

Facts

The City of Virginia Beach, Virginia, needed additional water to meet its residents’ needs. Virginia Beach was located in the James River water basin, but it sought permission from the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) (defendant) to build a pipeline to pump in water from Lake Gaston in the Roanoke River Basin. The Corps granted the permits necessary for the requested interbasin-transfer pipeline project, allowing Virginia Beach to pump up to 60 million gallons per day from the lake. The Roanoke River Basin covered parts of Virginia and North Carolina. The State of North Carolina, the Roanoke River Basin Association, and several Virginia and North Carolina counties (collectively, the RRB users) (plaintiffs) sued Colonel Ronald Hudson, the Corps, and others (defendants) in federal district court, challenging the issuance of the permits. The RRB users were concerned about the loss of water in their own basin and the fact that pulling this volume of water from the lake could sometimes cause additional pollution to the remaining water. The court ordered the Corps to determine two items and report back: (1) whether an environmental-impact statement (EIS) was necessary to determine the project’s impact on the area’s striped bass and (2) the extent of Virginia Beach’s need for additional water. The Corps collected and analyzed additional data. For the striped-bass concerns, the Corps determined that overfishing was the primary cause of the current issues and that the project would likely have a minimal impact on the population. Still, the Corps added a permit condition that Virginia Beach not pull too much water from the lake during the striped bass’s spawning season. The Corps also determined that Virginia Beach truly needed the proposed additional 60 million gallons of water per day. The Corps provided these additional findings to the district court. The RRB users objected that the Corps had not adequately considered some factors in making each of its two findings. The court then prepared its final ruling.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Britt, C.J.)

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 905,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 905,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 995 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 905,000 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
  • 47,100 briefs - keyed to 995 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