Federal Appeals Court Upholds Mosaic's Phosphate Permit
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a decision by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue a permit needed by Mosaic to discharge dredged and fill materials into waterways.
November 06, 2019 at 01:36 PM
4 minute read
Rejecting arguments of environmental groups, a divided federal appeals court has backed a decision by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue a permit sought by the phosphate company Mosaic for expanded mining operations in Florida.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on Monday upheld a decision by the Army Corps to issue a permit needed by Mosaic to discharge dredged and fill materials into waterways.
Environmental groups challenged the permit, at least in part, because the Army Corps didn't take into account environmental effects of Mosaic producing and storing phosphogypsum, a radioactive byproduct of the manufacturing process of turning phosphate into fertilizer.
But the panel majority said the Army Corps was not required to consider phosphogypsum in determining whether to issue the discharge permit tied to mining.
"Phosphogypsum-related effects are, at most, tenuously caused by the discharge of dredged and fill material allowed by the Corps' permit," said the 37-page majority opinion, written by Judge John Rogers and joined by Chief Judge Ed Carnes. "Phosphogypsum is a byproduct not of dredging and filling — nor even of phosphate mining or beneficiation — but of fertilizer production. Further, the fertilizer production takes place far from and long after the Corps-permitted discharges."
But Judge Beverly Martin, in a 20-page dissent, wrote that a phosphate-rich region known as Bone Valley includes massive piles of phosphogypsum, describing it as "a monument to the lasting environmental impact of Florida's phosphate fertilizer industry." She wrote that phosphogypsum-tainted water has spilled into waterways and said the Army Corps should have considered the environmental impact of the phosphogypsum "stacks" before issuing the permit.
"This record shows that radioactive phosphogypsum stacks tower above Florida water sources, and these stacks have spilled waste into the surrounding waters," Martin wrote. "Production of more phosphogypsum is a clearly foreseeable result of Mosaic's phosphate mining and fertilizer operation. The Corps should have assessed the environmental impact that leaky phosphogypsum stacks might have on U.S. waters and the environment at large before granting Mosaic its permit."
The majority opinion said the issue is rooted in four proposed permits sought in 2010 and 2011 under the federal Clean Water Act. The Army Corps carried out a required environmental-impact study for the projects.
In 2016, it issued a permit for what is known as the South Pasture Extension, which is in Hardee County, according to Mosaic's website.
The permit was challenged by the Center for Biodiversity, ManaSota-88, Inc., People for Protecting Peace River, Inc., and Suncoast Waterkeeper.
But Monday's majority opinion said the Army Corps, in considering discharge permits, is not responsible for broader regulation of phosphogypsum.
"No federal law empowers the Corps to protect the environment writ large or to regulate phosphate mining as such, much less fertilizer production or phosphogypsum stacking," the opinion said. "Whatever federal regulatory powers there are over phosphogypsum-related effects, Congress granted to the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], leaving the bulk of control over phosphate mining and fertilizer production to the states. Requiring the Corps to enter those regulatory spheres not only offends congressional design but risks duplicative, incongruous, and unwise regulation. Because the Corps does not generally regulate phosphogypsum, it has no subject-matter expertise in that area."
Martin, however, wrote that the "Corps did not do its job when it failed to consider phosphogypsum as an indirect environmental effect of Mosaic's … permit."
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250