Central Utah Project Litigation Documents

Page 21

Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. 664 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, Calif, 94301 New York Office AIC 221-] 0 8 0 Washington Office 15 West 44th Street *" 1710 N Street, N.W. New York, New York 10036 _ . , , 1 Q 7 4 Washington, D.C. 20036 212 869-0150 April 1, i y / 4 202 783-5710 Mr. H. Anthony Ruckel Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund 508 Majestic Bldg. 209 16th St. Denver, Colorado 80202 Re: Sierra Club v. Stamm (Central Utah Project) Dear Tony: I have received and skimmed the voluminous papers you forwarded on the CUP lawsuit. Some thoughts on a few points raised therein follow: (1) The government relies heavily on EDF v. Armstrong (New Melones, 9th Cir.) on the scope of review issue in its brief. That case has been clarified (and, by implication, disapproved) in the more recent 9th Cir. case of Lathan v. Volpe, a copy of which is enclosed. (2) On the standing question the first line of defense for NRDC and EDF should probably be that the standing of some plaintiffs should not be questioned when it is clear other plaintiffs have standing. Particularly on a preliminary injunction, it is a waste of the Court's valuable time to inquire into this matter when the disposition of the lawsuit won't be affected. I can provide an affidavit or stipulation that our interests coincide with the Sierra Club's to avoid any question of our acting differently from the Club (such as by appealing when the Club decides not to) if you think it necessary. I can also try to put together ^a fstanding case (contacting our members in Utah re: impact of the Projerct!Pbut that's obviously a last resort. Finally, I don't really understand how the government can argue our allegations of standing injury are insufficient, as they appear to do (p. 52 of brief) and the laches and exhaustion arguments are specious, I believe. (3) On the cost-benefit analysis issue, I had a rather lengthy section on the question in the memorandum in support of the preliminary injunction in my Auburn dam case (NRDC v. Stamm) which I sent you previously. (4) I understand that OMB has taken the position that the WRC's Principles and Standards are still in force; in other words, they survived the Water Resources Development Act of 1973 except for the discount rate. OMB's position is that, while Congress repealed the new discount rate and called for yet another investigation and formulation of Principles and