## Facts

- The Department of the Navy planned a dredging project in San Diego Bay to support an aircraft-carrier berthing facility.
- Because the project affected coastal uses and resources, the Navy submitted a Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) consistency determination to California’s coastal management agency, the California Coastal Commission (CCC).
- The Navy’s initial plan stated that suitable dredged materials would be used for beach replenishment and the remainder would be disposed of at a deep-ocean dump site; CCC concurred and dredging began.
- During dredging, the Navy discovered live ordnance (unexploded munitions) in dredged sediments.
- The Navy submitted a revised consistency determination indicating it would ocean-dump all dredged material rather than use any for beach nourishment.
- The Navy obtained an expert study (the Harris Report) describing possible alternatives to all-ocean disposal that might allow some material to be made safe for beneficial use.
- The Navy withdrew the revised consistency determination from CCC review and instead sought a modified Clean Water Act § 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorizing all-ocean disposal.
- The Navy notified CCC it would proceed under the Corps permit rather than continue CZMA consistency review.
- CCC sued and moved for a preliminary injunction to halt further dredging and ocean disposal until CZMA compliance occurred, including review informed by the Harris Report.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal agency violates the CZMA by materially changing a coastal-zone project and proceeding without completing state consistency review informed by significant new information.
2. Whether obtaining or modifying a Clean Water Act permit through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can substitute for, displace, or bypass the federal agency’s independent CZMA consistency obligations.
3. Whether CCC satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction, including likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.

## Decision

- The district court granted CCC’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court found CCC showed a sufficient likelihood of success that the Navy had CZMA duties to keep the state informed of significant changes and to provide new information bearing on environmental effects for state review.
- The court treated the Navy’s shift from partial beach nourishment to all-ocean disposal as a material change triggering renewed consistency obligations.
- The court concluded the Navy’s withdrawal of the revised consistency submission and failure to provide the Harris Report supported injunctive relief.
- The court rejected the argument that proceeding under a Corps-issued Clean Water Act permit eliminated the Navy’s separate CZMA obligations.
- The court found irreparable harm from ocean disposal and the loss of potential beach nourishment opportunities, and concluded the balance of hardships and public interest favored enforcing CZMA requirements pending litigation.

## Legal Principles

- Federal activities affecting the coastal zone must be carried out “to the maximum extent practicable” consistent with an approved state coastal management program.
- A prior state concurrence does not authorize unreviewed, material changes in the federal activity; significant changes and new information must be submitted through the CZMA consistency process.
- Compliance with other federal permitting regimes, including Clean Water Act permitting by the Army Corps of Engineers, does not substitute for a federal agency’s independent CZMA consistency duty.
- Preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate where there is a strong showing of likely CZMA noncompliance and irreparable environmental harm, and where equitable factors favor preserving the status quo.

## Conclusion

The court enjoined the Navy from proceeding with its revised dredging and all-ocean-disposal plan until it complied with CZMA consistency requirements, including submission of material changes and relevant alternatives information to California for review.


California Coastal Comm’n v. Dep’t of the Navy, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (S.D. Cal. 1998)