enjoying outdoor recreation, including fishing in nearby lakes and streams, that is unimpaired by pollution from the Big Brown plant’s excessive emissions; (3) using and enjoying property, and viewing and enjoying natural scenery and wildlife that is unimpaired by pollution from the Big Brown plant’s excessive emissions; and (4) protecting the natural ecology of the region from air pollution-related impacts. Pi’s Original Complaint [Doc. # 1] at ¶¶ 10-11. This pleading is sufficient to demonstrate that Sierra Club has standing since its members have an injury in fact that is directly related to Big Brown Plant’s emissions and can be addressed by a favorable decision by this Court. See Texans United for a Safe Econ. Educ. Fund. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 207 F.8d 789 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Also, Plaintiff has demonstrated that the
holding the epa could regulate air pollutants under the clean air act solely on the basis of the pollutants risk to human health holding that case law from other circuits squarely precluded jurisdiction over preenforcement ruling under the clean air act holding in a case involving the clean air act asbestos workpractice standards that knowingly violates does not require knowledge of the illegality of ones conduct holding a plaintiff will suffer injury if compelled to breathe air less pure than that mandated by the clean air act holding that kentucky counties tenthamendment challenge to the clean air act obviously fails under garcia