WRCBtv News Story Q. Consider how the standing rule proposed by Douglas would work in the suit brought by TWCN against the city of Chattanooga (described above). What arguments could be made on behalf of the city? Under normal conditions, CSS transports all of the wastewater it collects to a sewage treatment plant for treatment, then discharges to a water body. What responsibility does the city have for ensuring that sanitary sewer systems are in compliance with water quality standards? Is it even achievable considering the cost associated with such upgrades? Does TWCN, as a party, be able to meet the three requirements of standing outlined in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992): 1. The plaintiff must show an "injury-in-fact" that is "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent," not conjecturel or hypothetical. 2. The plaintiff must demonstrate a "causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of" (i.e., the injury must be "fairly traceable" to the defendant's chal-lenged actions). 3. The plaintiff's injury must be one that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision in the case. "Note: "injury-in-fact" suffered by the plaintiff does not have to be an economic injury. Injuries to a recreational or aesthetic interest, for example, can also satisfy the "injury-in-fact" requirement. RESPONSE GUIDELINES: 1. Each individual response to one or more of the prompts above must be a minimum of 4 sentences long. 2. Each student must then choose 2 peer comments to engage in for full credit. These responses must use appropriate language to express one's individual view in support for or against the statement. Be kind, be positive, do not offend. There is no right or wrong answer here..just a discussion