Town of Huntington v. Marsh

In 1980, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (corps) (defendant) planned to conduct dredging operations in New Jersey. Twenty-three other parties (applicants) applied to the corps for permits to conduct dredging operations in Mamaroneck, New York, in the hope of using the corps’ dump site. The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Ocean Dumping Act, or ODA) provided that marine owners dumping less than 25,000 cubic yards of waste (cys) were exempt from the ODA’s stringent testing rules but that small dumpers were still subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA). The legislative history of the ODA emphasized that large dredgers were not to evade the ODA’s stricter testing rules by breaking up large projects into smaller projects. The applicants planned to dispose of 86,000 cys, but no individual applicant planned to dispose of more than 25,000 cys. The corps granted the permits but later modified the permits to allow the applicants to dump waste at a less costly new site in Long Island Sound. The new site was designated Western Long Island Sound III (WLIS III). The corps also planned to use WLIS III for federal projects yielding 560,000 cys. The use of WLIS III, a new site, required an environmental-impact statement (EIS). The corps’ EIS omitted chemical data on the sediments at WLIS III and analysis of WLIS III water-quality issues and was based on general environmental studies of the sound. Opponents of the project (plaintiffs) sued the corps, arguing that the corps’ EIS was inadequate and that the permits issued by the corps were unlawful. The corps argued that the applicants were exempt from the ODA because none would dispose of more than 25,000 cys. The corps also argued that its EIS was adequate because the corps was required to provide a complete analysis only at the time of permitting, not in selecting a new site. The district court ruled that the ODA applied and that the EIS was inadequate. The court enjoined the corps from granting permits for the WLIS III site until a supplemental EIS was completed. The corps appealed.