Our legal team has
• Stopped the destruction of wetlands and secured their permanent protection.
• Prevented numerous illegal discharges into the Delaware and its tributaries.
• Protected several communities, and the Delaware, from the effects of urban sprawl.
• Click here to learn more
Sometimes only a lawsuit or other enforcement action can protect the River, so it has its own attorneys: the Delaware Riverkeeper and DRN Senior Attorney. In addition, DRN hosts an Environmental Law Clinic at Temple University Law School. At the River Resources Law Clinic second- and third-year law students work with the Senior Attorney and the Delaware Riverkeeper to identify and pursue important litigation on behalf of the River, its tributaries and habitats. 



Current litigations:

Endangered Species


Red Knot And Horseshoe Crabs
  •  

                   DRN is co-plaintiff in a legal action seeking to resurrect regulations in the State of Delaware that provided for a moratorium on the bait harvest of horseshoe crabs in an effort to ensure enough eggs for a migrating shorebird, the Red Knot rufa.  DRN is also co-plaintiff in a suit seeking to force US Fish and Wildlife Service to list the red knot, a small shorebird, as endangered.  The red knot is projected to go extinct by 2010 due to the diminishment of its primary food source horseshoe crab eggs.


    		•

    Harmful Development



  • Highways are among the most significant sources of water quality degradation, especially due to their secondary, sprawl inducing effects.  The Clinic is addressing the negative impacts of roads and other infrastructure in the watershed.  Most recently on this front DRN joined Buckingham Township in suing the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for a proposal for an oversized and environmentally damaging highway, resulting in a substantial scaling back of the project and other improvements.  DRN submitted an amicus brief supporting an appeal by Buckingham Township seeking attorneys fees, which resulted in a landmark decision by the PA Supreme Court confirming that Pennsylvania law strongly favors the awards of attorneys fees to plaintiffs in such cases and rejecting the U.S. Supreme Court's restrictive federal law precedent in Buckhannon.  DRN sought leave to participate in the remand proceedings before the PA DEP Environmental Hearing Board and filed documents to secure attorneys fees.  Our attorney fees request was ultimately denied. 



    • Easton Parking Authority
  • The Federal Transit Administration decided to partially fund a 12-story bus terminal, parking garage, commercial and condominium development in the floodplain of the Delaware River in the Easton, PA historic district.  DRN filed suit claiming violations of NEPA and E.O. 11988 (limitations on floodplain development).  In response, FTA revoked its categorical exclusion from NEPA determination and has begun to prepare an environmental assessment but the local agency constructing the project has asserted that it can move forward with construction without federal funds, which would be used later to reimburse the costs of construction. Motion for preliminary injunction was filed and a hearing was held  December 13, 2007; a decision is still awaited.   Additionally, DRN has submitted substantial comments and documentation demonstrating the gross inadequacy of the draft EA, which eliminates from consideration all alternative locations.


    • Floodplain Development


  • Wetlands
  •  

                          Poszgai Contempt Motion - The Clinic has supported the U.S. in the landmark Clean Water Act enforcement case against John Poszgai, who flagrantly and repeatedly filled wetlands in knowing violation of the CWA.  DRN intervened in the case and in September 2006 filed a brief supporting the government's position that the recent Supreme Court decision in the Rapanos case did not obviate Poszgai's obligation to comply with the district court's order to restore the wetlands. 


    • Regulation and Law


    Clean Water Act 316(b) -- Cooling Water Intake Structures
  • Section 316b of the Clean Water Act mandates that facilities minimize the adverse environmental imact, the fish kills, that occur as the result of cooling water intake structures.  In 2007, DRN was part of a major legal success securing a second circuit opinion knocking down damaging EPA regulations implementing 316b and offering powerful guidance about how it should in fact be implemented.  As a result, all of the watershed states are facing decisions about how they will act upon and implement 316b.   Permits are starting to be issued by the states, demonstrating how they plan to interpret and implement the legal decision and 316b.  DRN is watchdogging the process in all three states. 


    • Water Quality
  • Delaware Riverkeeper Network & Delaware Riverkeeper et. al. v. NY State Department of Environmental Conservation:  The Delaware Riverkeeper Network, The Humane Society of the United States, the Delaware Riverkeeper, and American Littoral Society filed suit in the New York Supreme Court challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's concealment of the terms of water pollution permits issued to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The suit asks the court to order NYSDEC to release the records publicly.

    CAFOs are large scale "factory farm" facilities that raise animals for meat, eggs, and dairy. The animals, who are often so intensively confined they can barely move, produce massive amounts of manure and have degraded water quality in lakes and streams across the country. At least two intensive confinement facilities, both undergoing expansion, are located in the Delaware River Watershed on the Middle Mongaup River. One of them, Hudson Valley Foie Gras has a history of violations of its discharge permits, spilling manure and releasing bacteria and chlorine into the river.  This lawsuit seeks access to permit-required documents key to assessing the environmental safety of the facility, documents that State law requires be publicly available. 

    		•