## Facts

- Congress authorized the Tennessee–Tombigbee Waterway in 1946 with a 170-foot bottom-width channel, but did not immediately fund construction.
- In 1966, the Army Corps of Engineers recommended building the waterway with a 300-foot bottom width, and proceeded administratively on that basis.
- Environmental organizations publicly opposed the expanded project and testified before Congress about environmental concerns by 1967.
- An earlier suit seeking to stop the project was filed in 1971 and dismissed; construction began in 1972.
- EDF filed the present action in 1976, primarily asserting environmental statutory challenges and seeking injunctive relief.
- By 1976, approximately $36 million had been spent on construction.
- In 1978, EDF amended its complaint to add a new theory that the Corps lacked statutory authority to build a 300-foot channel because Congress had authorized only 170 feet, and that appropriations did not supply missing authorization.
- By the 1978 amendment, project expenditures were approximately $604 million, and construction was substantially advanced.

## Issues

1. Whether EDF’s request for injunctive relief was barred by laches due to unreasonable delay and resulting prejudice in challenging the 300-foot channel.
2. Whether laches may apply where plaintiffs characterize the agency action as ultra vires and seek to halt a federally funded public works project.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the action on laches grounds.
- The court held EDF unreasonably delayed raising the statutory-authorization challenge until 1978 despite long-standing knowledge of the 300-foot design.
- The court found substantial prejudice to the government and the public given the project’s advanced stage and hundreds of millions of dollars already expended.
- The court rejected the argument that laches is categorically unavailable merely because the claim is framed as ultra vires.
- The court treated Congress’s repeated appropriations with knowledge of the 300-foot design as a factor supporting denial of equitable relief.

## Legal Principles

- Laches bars equitable relief when (1) the plaintiff unreasonably delays in asserting the claim and (2) the delay causes prejudice to the defendant or the public.
- When a plaintiff seeks an injunction, equitable defenses—including laches—may limit relief even in suits alleging statutory violations.
- In challenges to large public works, advanced construction and major expenditures can constitute strong prejudice supporting laches.
- Congressional appropriations made with knowledge of an agency’s implementation details may weigh against late-filed claims seeking to halt the project and may be considered evidence of congressional acquiescence for equitable purposes.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that EDF waited too long to assert its statutory-authorization challenge to the 300-foot channel and that enjoining the waterway after massive expenditures and substantial progress would be inequitable; laches therefore barred injunctive relief and the project could continue.


Env’t Def. Fund, Inc. v. Alexander, 614 F.2d 474 (5th Cir. 1980)