| OCR Text |
Show Mr. Dennis Olsen May 16, 1974 Page 2 Seninger's testimony and show that defendants' arguments are misdirected; we challenge the lack of the cost-benefit analysis applied to the environmental amenities Hk costs and the influence the balance struck has on the decision-making process, rather than the traditional cost-benefit analysis emphasizing monetary values which accompanies proposal of a project to the United States Congress. / There is one other area I would like to see covered. It seems to me we need to say in one manner or another, whether it is in a conclusion to our rebuttal brief or in specific parts of that brief, that what we are talking about makes a difference in terms of whether or not the Currant Creek Dam might have been changed or eliminated J in terms of achieving ultimate project objectives. This really goes <^ to all three of our principal allegations here. In other words, | I think we need to tell Judge Ritter that judgment in our behalf / does not necessarilyjittiiiUT administrative remand but may well I result in a changed situation and thus protection or at least V mitigation of Currant <&re-ftk. t raflnjiUr I I suggest in rebuttal that you knock down many of the cases Clyde seems to rely on. Naturally this presupposes the ability to do so, but if his actions at trial are any guide, his use of the cases he cites should have close scrutiny. A couple of smaller points which may have already been covered in another context or you may be saving for rebuttal: (1) the fourth, albeit less impressive, allegation of insufficiency under NEPA is expressed in terms of lack of environmental impact analysis on the Uinta Basin, particularly secondary impacts; (2) irreparable harm, particularly the using of some reference to Clark Johnson's testimony, a witness the Judge seemed to like, and in addition^ has the embarrassing position from the point of view of the defendants of being a federal employee. In fact, you may want to make something of the fact that Johnson, Lynn, JReed^ and the others at the October 25 meeting listed by Lynn as Being doubtful about the project were all government employees and" that in fact it would appear the government doe's" not think the project too good an THPP. At any rate, it seems to me the~two~~polnts above Should be mentioned at some time. Good luck, and, again, I want to give you my heartfelt thanks for the excellent work you have rendered and assistance you have given us. Feel free to call cone ernjjig,^ the rebuttal brief; although I'll be briefing on the Nebraska jaalTter', I will be here in the office and can be reached. y^ h VXntfiony Ruckel )enver| {Office |
