Environmental regulation enforcement
River users can keep pressing Alabama Power on coal ash
The court said members who fish, swim and spend time near the Mobile River have a live claim over toxic leaching from Plant Barry. That keeps the fight over the cleanup plan in federal court for now.
People who use the Mobile River and nearby waterways still have a path to challenge Alabama Power’s coal ash closure plan, the Eleventh Circuit said. The judges found the alleged pollution traceable to the plan and said a court order could still make a real difference, even though the site has been leaking for years.
- Mobile Baykeeper can keep suing Alabama Power over coal ash at Plant Barry.
- The court said a better closure plan could still reduce the alleged harm.
- The fight is about standing, not whether the company polluted the water.
- The case involves the Mobile River and nearby waterways in Alabama.
For people who fish, swim, or live near the Mobile River, the legal fight matters because it keeps a path open to challenge pollution they say is still reaching local waterways. In a federal ruling, the Eleventh Circuit said Mobile Baykeeper can pursue its case against Alabama Power over alleged toxic leaching from a coal ash impoundment at one of the company’s plants.
The court framed the case around the usual standing requirements, injury, causation, and redressability. Mobile Baykeeper says the pollution has harmed its members’ use and enjoyment of the Mobile River and neighboring waterways, and the judges said that is enough to keep the lawsuit moving because a lawful version of the closure plan could actually ease or eliminate the harm.
Why the closure plan matters
The lawsuit does not turn on a broad complaint about pollution in the abstract. It focuses on a closure plan Alabama Power is already implementing at the Plant Barry impoundment, where the group says coal ash is leaking toxins into the water. The challenge is that the company’s current plan allegedly does not meet federal requirements for closing the site.
That detail is what made redressability the center of the dispute. The court said the key question is whether a court order requiring a compliant plan could reduce the injury Mobile Baykeeper says its members are suffering. On that point, the panel said the organization had done enough at the pleading stage.
What the ruling leaves open
The opinion keeps the focus on access to court, not on whether Alabama Power polluted the river or whether its closure plan ultimately complies with the law. But it does sharpen the path for environmental plaintiffs who are trying to sue over cleanup plans they say leave communities exposed. If the alleged harm is tied to an ongoing plan, the court said, plaintiffs still need to show that a lawful fix would make a real difference.
Mobile Baykeeper’s case now continues with that standing question resolved in its favor. The broader dispute over how coal ash sites are cleaned up, and how much a court can do about a plan already underway, remains in the background.