Filed: Sep. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 29, 2016
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, Jr. , District Judge . The stay, No 83, is lifted. All material things considered, the Court approves the parties' settlement and will enter the consent decree embodying it. United States v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, 952 F.2d 1040 , 1044 (8th Cir. 1992). This compromise is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest; no one raised a serious objection during the notice-and-comment period. The necessity of a state permit is, as EPA suggests, beyond the
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, Jr. , District Judge . The stay, No 83, is lifted. All material things considered, the Court approves the parties' settlement and will enter the consent decree embodying it. United States v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, 952 F.2d 1040 , 1044 (8th Cir. 1992). This compromise is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest; no one raised a serious objection during the notice-and-comment period. The necessity of a state permit is, as EPA suggests, beyond the f..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge.
The stay, No 83, is lifted. All material things considered, the Court approves the parties' settlement and will enter the consent decree embodying it. United States v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, 952 F.2d 1040, 1044 (8th Cir. 1992). This compromise is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest; no one raised a serious objection during the notice-and-comment period. The necessity of a state permit is, as EPA suggests, beyond the federal issues joined in this case. It's a matter between Eoff and the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission. The Court has presided over the twists and turns in this case for more than three years. Answering the jurisdictional question required a comprehensive review of the record. No 56. The settlement's particulars are not complicated. All this history eliminates any need for an evidentiary hearing. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, 952 F.2d at 1044. The Court confirms its earlier adjudication of Eoff's claims. No. 56 & 81. Unopposed motion, No. 93, granted.
So Ordered.
