Puget Soundkeeper Alliance et al v. McCarthy et al

Filing 99

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The Court hereby ORDERS the parties to show cause as to why this matter will not be moot once the final rule rescinding the 2015 Rule becomes effective. Briefs shall be filed no later than 10/18/2019. The Clerk is DIRECTED to ren ote Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 67 ), Intervenors' cross-motion and response (Dkt. No. 72 ), and Defendants' cross-motion and response (Dkt. No. 79 ) to 10/18/2019. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

PUGET SOUNDKEEPER ALLIANCE et al.,

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. C15-1342-JCC
ORDER

v.
ANDREW WHEELER, in his official capacity
as Acting Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, and R.D.
JAMES, in his official capacity as Secretary of
the Army for Civil Works,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. The Court set forth the underlying facts
of this case in prior orders and will restate only those relevant here. (See Dkt. No. 61.) In 2015,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) and the Environmental Protection Agency (the
“EPA”) (collectively, the “Agencies”) issued a final rule defining the jurisdictional scope of the
CWA. Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States,” 80 Fed. Reg. 37,054 (June
29, 2015) (to be codified at 33 C.F.R. pt. 328) (the “2015 Rule”). In May 2018, Plaintiffs filed a
first amended and supplemental complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. (See Dkt. No.
33.) Plaintiffs challenged the 2015 Rule and a final rule that would add an applicability date to
the 2015 Rule (the “Applicability Date Rule”). In an order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and Defendants’ cross-motion for summary
ORDER
C15-1342-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

judgment regarding the Applicability Date Rule, the Court vacated the Applicability Date Rule

2

nationwide, thereby leaving only Plaintiffs’ challenges to the 2015 Rule. (See Dkt. No. 61.)

3

On September 13, 2019, Defendants filed a notice of final rule. (Dkt. No. 97.)

4

Defendants state that on September 12, 2019, the Administrator of the EPA and the Assistant

5

Secretary of the Corps signed a final rule that “(1) rescinds the regulation at issue in this matter,

6

the [2015 Rule]; and (2) re-codifies the prior regulatory definition of ‘waters of the United

7

States,’ as informed by applicable agency guidance documents and consistent with Supreme

8

Court decisions and longstanding practice.” (Id. at 2.) The notice states that “[t]he rule will be

9

published in the Federal Register and will be effective 60 days thereafter.” (Id.)

10

Having considered the notice of final rule and relevant record, the Court hereby

11

ORDERS the parties to show cause as to why this matter will not be moot once the final rule

12

rescinding the 2015 Rule becomes effective. Briefs shall not exceed five pages in length and

13

shall be filed no later than October 18, 2019. The Clerk is DIRECTED to renote Plaintiffs’

14

motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 67), Intervenors’ cross-motion and response (Dkt. No.

15

72), and Defendants’ cross-motion and response (Dkt. No. 79) to October 18, 2019.

16

DATED this 8th day of October 2019.

A

17
18
19

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C15-1342-JCC
PAGE - 2