Correspondence on Bonneville Unit of Central Utah Project

Page 152

Mr. Curtis Oberhansley December 19, 1973 Page 2 the matter by the court on the merits; and (2) a substantial showing of likelihood of success on the merits, a standard which is rather more loosely applied than its language reflects. The irreparable harm question is the tricky one. After all, Currant Creek Dam is small, although it has a devastating impact in its immediate area. First, we would show this devastating impact, such impact being related in the complaint and supported to some extent in the environmental impact statement (EIS;. I think we would need some sort of brief affidavit here from a Fish and Game man or some similar type. However, I think the real criticalT*" supporting testimony we will need will be in the nature of an attack on the justification for the Currant Creek Dam itself. By this I mean the fact, as we interpret the facts, that"the dam has no justifiable purpose in and of itself separate and apart from the Strawberry Collection System and the diversion of water eventually to the Bonneville Basin. Given that that is established, the question most pertinent to us and the irreparable harm we allege is that only until an environmental impact statement is done on the entire CUP can one evaluate whether or not the Currant Creek Dam is needed in order to fulfill the project purposes. Stated another way, an impact statement on the entire CUP could drastically change the nature of the Strawberry Collection System and particular component parts of the System, such change quite possibly showing in the last analysis that Currant Creek Dam is not needed at all and that there are other ways of accomplishing the project objectives which make less impact on the environment. Obviously, quite a bit of this argument is an argument of law and we can make it without an affidavit However, we need to briefly support our argument of law, as it were, by an affidavit indicating that it is realistic from the point of view of water resources planning. You will note I am sending a copy of this letter to John McComb, the Southwest Representative of the Sierra Club. I will later today outline in more detail how I think he may be able to help us with such an affidavit, and I will take care of working with him on it. However, hopefully he can be buttressed by someone you have talked with and is now working on the situation for us. It does not seem to me unrealistic to assume that even an economist and a fijsheri.es...biologist may be able to speak~to the p oint in some manner; after all, If they have experience with water projects they can speak from experience and it should be remembered that we are supporting, actually, a temporary restraining motion rather than qualifying somebody to speak on the particular point in a trial. I think we can assume that the cost-benefit analysis work will not be needed in evidentiary form at the preliminary injunction level. We will naturally argue in our brief the cases to back up