Eoff v. Environmental Protection Agency et al

Filing 94

ORDER: The stay, 83 , is lifted. The Court approves the parties' settlement and will enter the consent decree embodying it. Unopposed motion, 93 , granted. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 9/29/2016. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
DAN EOFF

v.

PLAINTIFF/
COUNTER DEFENDANT
No. 4:13-cv-368-DPM

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;
and GINA MCCARTHY, in her official capacity as
DEFENDANTS/
Administrator of the EPA
COUNTER CLAIMANTS
ORDER
The stay, NQ 83, is lifted. All material things considered, the Court
approves the parties' settlement and will enter the consent decree embodying
it. United States v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, 952 F.2d 1040, 1044 (8th
Cir. 1992). This compromise is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest; no
one raised a serious objection during the notice-and-comment period. The
necessity of a state permit is, as EPA suggests, beyond the federal issues
joined in this case. It's a matter between Eoff and the Arkansas Natural
Resources Commission. The Court has presided over the twists and turns in
this case for more than three years. Answering the jurisdictional question
required a comprehensive review of the record. NQ 56. The settlement's
particulars are not complicated. All this history eliminates any need for an

evidentiary hearing. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, 952 F.2d at 1044.
The Court confirms its earlier adjudication of Eoff' s claims. N2 56 & 81.
Unopposed motion, N2 93, granted.
So Ordered.
7

D .P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
..2. 9

u 4' fu.d>£t
I

-2-

;2. 0

a,.