January, 11 2018, 03:30pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Emilie Surrusco, Earthjustice, eksurrusco@gmail.com, (202) 341-8787
Abbie Marks, Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, basinkeeper@gmail.com, (225) 685-9439
Maia Raposo, Waterkeeper Alliance, mraposo@waterkeeper.org, (203) 824-2229
Dustin Renaud, Gulf Restoration Network, dustin@healthygulf.org, (504) 525-1528 x214
Bayou Bridge Fight Heads to Federal Court
Complaint alleges government failed to consider irreparable harm to Atchafalaya River Basin.
BATON ROUGE, LA
Representing the interests of the millions of people who use, visit, study and rely on the Atchafalaya Great River Swamp, several groups today asked a Louisiana federal district court to vacate a recent decision by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that would allow the controversial Bayou Bridge pipeline to be constructed through the Atchafalaya Basin, one of the nation's ecological crown jewels, and through hundreds of Louisiana's streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands and bayous.
"Not only is the Atchafalaya Basin the most important ecosystem for neotropical migratory birds in the western hemisphere, but it is also critically important to protect much of south Louisiana and the Mississippi valley from major river floods. By allowing unsustainable development in the Basin, we are endangering hundreds of cities and communities and millions of people in southern Louisiana," proclaims Dean Wilson, Executive Director of Atchafalaya Basinkeeper.
The groups - Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, the Louisiana Crawfish Producers Association (West), Gulf Restoration Network, Waterkeeper Alliance, Sierra Club and their lawyers at Earthjustice - filed a lawsuit on Thursday to keep construction of the pipeline from moving forward. The lawsuit claims that the 162-mile pipeline would pose a serious threat, with risks of oil spills into wetlands, rivers and lakes; as well as the potential for permanent destruction of invaluable cypress and tupelo river swamps.
The pipeline project proposes to connect the controversial Dakota Access pipeline, which transports volatile and explosive Bakken crude oil from North Dakota, to refineries in St. James Parish and export terminals, forming the southern leg of the Bakken Pipeline. Energy Transfer Partners owns both the Dakota Access Pipeline and the proposed Bayou Bridge Pipeline.
"Energy Transfer Partners wants to bring its toxic mix of incompetence and greed to one of the nation's crown jewel landscapes--the Atchafalaya Basin," says Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice attorney for the plaintiffs. "The Corps refusal to look closely at the risks of this project is not just short-sighted, it's illegal."
The Atchafalaya Basin's bottomland hardwoods, cypress swamps, bayous and backwater lakes are some of the country's most productive wildlife habitats - home to 45 species of mammals, 250 species of birds and 40 species of reptiles - and a vital part of the region's economy, with tourism and travel expenditures that exceed $400 million annually.
"For too long, companies like Energy Transfer Partners have profited from the build-out of pipelines and lax enforcement by the government, while local communities and economies pay the price," said Marc Yaggi, Executive Director of Waterkeeper Alliance. "When it comes to oil pipelines, the sad reality is that it is not so much a question of if a spill will occur, but when. It's preposterous to put communities and our natural resources at risk for the sake of industrial polluters' profits."
"Oil and gas pipelines, and the spoil banks and canals associated with their construction, have degraded or destroyed extensive portions of the Basin's wetlands and waterways," the complaint reads.
The proposed pipeline threatens to further degrade forested swamps in the Atchafalaya Basin, and destroy wild crawfish habitat by making permanent illegal spoil banks that are already destroying swamps along the Bayou Bridge pipeline right-of-way. Before any more pipelines are built in the Basin, the Corps needs to enforce existing permits and bring illegal rights-of-way back into compliance.
"We have a right to a healthy environment. If the Cajun people of Louisiana had challenged the first pipeline when it came through Louisiana, we wouldn't be facing the environmental mess that we have in coastal Louisiana and the Atchafalaya Basin," said Jody Meche, a commercial crawfisherman with the Louisiana Crawfish Producer's Association, West. "It is the right thing to do to challenge the construction of a new pipeline by Energy Transfer Partners, which has a track record of flagrantly violating environmental laws."
The overall health of the basin would be threatened by potential leaks and spills - a routine occurrence for old and new pipelines. One study revealed an average of 20 major spills occur in Louisiana each year. In addition, federal data shows that Energy Transfer Partners and its subsidiary Sunoco Inc. were responsible for 329 "significant" pipeline incidents across the country in the last decade.
"The destruction of these wetlands, in direct opposition to the Louisiana Coastal Master Plan, would further weaken the state's storm defenses. Impacts to wetland forests are not 'temporary,' especially granted the severe hydrological alterations within the Atchafalaya Basin," said Scott Eustis of Gulf Restoration Network.
Despite repeated requests for adequate environmental review, the Corps issued permits and authorizations for the pipeline on December 14, 2017 without requiring an Environmental Impact Statement--a violation of the Clean Water Act, and National Environmental Protection Act, according to the complaint.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
LATEST NEWS
Amid Warnings of Atrocities in Sudan, Van Hollen Says Senate 'Missed Opportunity' to Cut Off Arms to UAE
"The United States shouldn't just be talking about ending the slaughter in Sudan," the senator said. "We should actually be using our leverage."
Jun 24, 2026
After the US State Department warned earlier this week of imminent “atrocities” by Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces, Sen. Chris Van Hollen on Tuesday criticized the US Senate for missing a recent opportunity to cut off weapons to the United Arab Emirates, which has supplied the genocidal paramilitary group.
On Monday, the State Department warned that RSF forces were massing near the city of El-Obeid and could commit “mass atrocities” against civilians if allowed to take the city.
"The belligerents must uphold their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect civilians and ensure that those seeking safety can do so without fear or obstruction," the department said.
The statement echoed concerns expressed last week by a coalition of states at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which said that roughly 500,000 civilians, including more than 100,000 displaced people, could be at risk of violence if RSF escalated its assault.
UN human rights experts have said RSF's October offensive in Darfur bore the "hallmarks of genocide," with more than 6,000 people killed and numerous civilians tortured, raped, and starved during a three-day rampage across the city of El-Fasher.
But while Trump's State Department has sanctioned some entities accused of supplying fighters for the RSF, the Monday statement made no mention of the UAE, which rights groups point out is the group’s principal foreign backer.
A report issued last year by Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) found that the UAE was continuing to provide weapons to the RSF despite telling the US that it was not.
Following previous failed attempts at pushing Congress to impose an arms embargo on Sudan through standalone legislation, Van Hollen attempted to do so again last week by tacking a pair of amendments onto the bipartisan PEACE in Sudan Act, which requires the State Department to assess designating armed Sudanese groups as terrorists and allows Trump to impose optional sanctions on foreign actors funding the war, but stopped short of introducing any hard leverage.
At a markup session for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Van Hollen introduced an amendment banning the US from selling or transferring military equipment to the UAE as long as it continues supporting the RSF. The amendment failed in a 15-7 vote, with four Democrats—Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Chris Coons (Del.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), and Jacky Rosen (Nev.)—joining every Republican on the committee, aside from Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), in opposition.
A second amendment, which did not single out the UAE specifically but restricted arms sales to any country arming either side of the conflict, also failed 13-9, but received support from Shaheen and Rosen.
Coons said he'd have "enthusiastically" supported the amendment, but voted no because he believed it would "bring down" the broader Sudan bill in a GOP-controlled Senate. Duckworth did not explain her reasoning for voting no.
In light of the State Department's warning this week about RSF's march toward El-Obeid, Van Hollen told a Drop Site News reporter on Tuesday that he believed the no vote on his amendments "was a missed opportunity."
"The United States shouldn't just be talking about ending the slaughter in Sudan. We should actually be using our leverage," he said.
Noting that Trump likely would not support a restriction on arms to the UAE given his extensive financial entanglements with the Emiratis and his previous policy of fast-tracking weapons to the country without any strings attached, Van Hollen said his goal was simply to "keep the pressure on."
He said, "We need to keep showing the hypocrisy of the Trump administration policy, where they claim they want to do something but refuse to take some of the basic actions we can take as a country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Applause as Judge Halts 'Blatantly Illegal and Cruel' ICE Courthouse Arrest Policy Nationwide
"The courthouse is meant to be a refuge for the pursuit of justice, not a hunting ground for ICE," said one attorney.
Jun 24, 2026
A federal judge on Tuesday ordered a nationwide halt to a Trump administration policy expanding immigration enforcement officials' authority to arrest non-citizens at US immigration courthouses.
US District Judge P. Casey Pitts, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, ruled that the courthouse arrests carried out by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violated the Administrative Procedures Act's requirement for "reasoned decision making" in federal agencies' policy decisions.
After reviewing the evidence, Pitts found that the government "failed to provide reasoned explanations for their actions," which he thus deemed "arbitrary and capricious."
"The expansion of arrests at immigration courthouses results not from merely unreasoned decision making," Pitts emphasized, "but a complete lack of decision making."
The Trump administration last year rescinded previous policies that had restricted ICE agents' ability to make arrests at courts, and allowed agents to keep noncitizens detained for up to 72 hours.
In prior years, noted Pitts, courthouse arrests "would be undertaken only against noncitizens whom ICE had a heightened interest in detaining immediately because, for example, they were ‘suspected of terrorism or espionage,’ had been convicted of crimes, ‘participated in organized criminal gangs,’ or ‘otherwise pose[d] a serious risk to public safety.'"
Pitts' ruling, which the Trump administration is expected to challenge, restores those previous restrictions on courthouse arrests.
Jordan Wells, senior staff attorney at the Bay Area chapter of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, told The San Francisco Chronicle that Pitts' ruling restored the notion that "the courthouse is meant to be a refuge for the pursuit of justice, not a hunting ground for ICE."
“No one, including immigrants, should be forced to choose between their liberty and their day in court," added Wells, whose organization is co-representing a group of asylum seekers who had filed a complaint to overturn the ICE courthouse arrest policy.
Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) hailed Pitts' ruling as "excellent news."
"Immigrants who show up to court—'the right way'—have been targeted by this administration," Escobar wrote in a social media post. "So glad to see this blatantly illegal and cruel policy struck down."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Heritage Foundation Brags That Trump Has Implemented More Than Half of Project 2025
"These actions will have devastating consequences for workers, the environment, public health, and the rights of millions of Americans," warned progressive groups tracking the far-right agenda's implementation.
Jun 24, 2026
The right-wing Heritage Foundation boasted in a fundraising email on Tuesday that US President Donald Trump's administration has implemented more than half of the policy proposals laid out in the group's Project 2025 agenda, a sweeping conservative governance plan that Trump repeatedly claimed to know nothing about during his campaign for a second White House term.
The Heritage Foundation's email, first reported by Bloomberg, stated that 53% of Project 2025 is now federal policy, pointing to the administration's dismantling of the US Agency for International Development and broader attack on "diversity, equity, and inclusion policies" as examples. The group emphasized that its work is far from finished, declaring that "in this special 250th anniversary year, we must work to implement all of Heritage’s policy recommendations to ensure another 250 years of American greatness.”
Heritage's estimate that the Trump administration—which includes Project 2025 chief architect Russell Vought, the head of the White House budget office—has enacted 53% of Project 2025's proposals aligns precisely with a tracker maintained by the Center for Progressive Reform and Governing for Impact. The groups warned that "these actions will have devastating consequences for workers, the environment, public health, and the rights of millions of Americans."
The tracker, last updated in February, shows that the Trump White House had by that point implemented 283 of the 532 policy actions recommended by Project 2025 via executive order—from the dismantling of the Education Department to halting federal grants for environmental organizations to stripping civil service protections from federal workers.
That the Trump administration's policy actions mirror those recommended by Project 2025 should not be entirely surprising, given that the agenda broadly reflects the conservative movement's priorities. But Project 2025's creators have publicly taken credit for the White House's moves.
“This is exactly the work we set out to do,” Paul Dans, who worked in the first Trump administration and oversaw Project 2025's creation, told CNN last year as the administration's early actions mirrored the right-wing agenda. “We wanted to make sure the president was ready to hit the ground running on day one. The rapidity and the depth of what they’ve rolled out this quickly is a testament to the work done in Project 2025."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


