Activists contest Clean Water Act permit, argue dredged material will damage wetlands
(UC) — Environmental groups and fishermen told a federal appeals court on Wednesday that the approval of the US Army Corps of Engineers' Clean Water Act permit for the Rio Grande LNG project would cause sustained damage to wetlands in southern Texas, Reuters reported.
The groups argued in court that the permit, which allows developers to discharge dredged or fill material into waterways such as wetlands, was too accommodating to industry interests at the expense of wetlands, the article stated.
Sierra Club Attorney Thomas Gosselin, who represents the groups petitioning the permit, argued in a New Orleans court that the Army Corps ignored alternative locations and pathways for the infrastructure that would have resulted in less wetland disturbance.
He listed a non-wetland area that was left vacant after a related pipeline pathway was scrapped as a viable alternative for the project.
With this option available, Gosselin argued that going against the possibility of storing materials and machinery on the dry land violated the government's duty to approve a project with a lesser impact on protected wetlands.
“The Army Corps can’t reject an alternative because there are amenities or other benefits that the developers may or may not desire,” Gosselin said, referring to the Corps' arguments that the other locations would require more work to be done since the areas are not as accessible, according to the Reuters report.
Meanwhile, according to US Department of Justice attorney Rebecca Jaffe, the petitioners' assessment minimized the Army Corps' process and overarching concerns about those alternatives. Petitioners are essentially requesting that the massive 984-acre Port of Brownsville export terminal, as well as plans for related infrastructure such as pipelines, be redesigned to meet their needs, according to Jaffe. However, she claims that doing so would cost the developers tens of millions of dollars and raise numerous safety concerns.
“Even if you could shift everything over and you didn’t need the storage space ... you still have all the safety issues,” Jaffe said. “The Corps concluded it would cost tens of millions of dollars for developers and it would be approximately 245,000 dump trucks going back and forth on local roads.”
According to Enbridge spokesperson Michael Barnes, the company, which owns the Rio Bravo pipelines that will supply natural gas to the terminal, believes it has provided the court with "valuable information" to make an "informed decision" in the case.
The case is Shrimpers and Fishermen of the RGV v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 21-60889.
Related News
From Archive
- DeLa Express seeks FERC approval for Permian-to-Louisiana gas pipeline project
- OSHA penalizes Houston contractor over safety violations resulting in worker's death
- Fiber infrastructure has no known expiration date, Fiber Broadband Association research concludes
- Hudson Tunnel Project set to generate 95,000 jobs during construction phase, report says
- Damage prevention and safety: Turning awareness into action
Comments