Central Utah Project Litigation Documents

Page 54

the Bonneville Unit^Px pexhaps even the entire Central Utah Project^to t>e ^i.n ^t- sense,~a- mixed jjuestionir^rfrrxatrt-and iaw. By that we mean that the issue as to whether the Strawberry sys­tem i s a unit unto i t s e l f , and can stand on i t s own two feet, or, on the contrary, whether i t is so intertwined with the rest of the Bonneville Unit and the Central Utah Project that i t is but an increment of the larger plan, is essentially one of fact. Then whether the "facts" as thus found by the trial court permit the Strawberry system to be classified as an independent, "major-Federals action"-is e s s e n t i a l l y a question of law. - Let us now^examine^the trial -couxtis. findings on the i s s u e a s t o whether the Strawbexry^system i s an independ-entTTttnit^- ox^notv . 1. Scientists' Inst, forPub. Info., Inc. v. Atomic Energy Com'n, 481 T.2d 1079, at 1095 (D.C.Cir. 1973), footnote 68, reads as follows: "The decision whether the time is ripe for a NEPA statement on an overall research and development pro­gram i s a mixed question of law and of fact. It concerns a question of law as to interpretation of the statutory phrase 'major Federal action significantly affecting the qua! i t y of the human -environment'r as 11 pert at ns to t ech-nologyrxeseaxch~ and -development progxams^ As indicated in t e x t , we-tnterpxetr the"statute t o pxovide t o x a balanc­ing appxeaofc^whiehrtakes^nte^aeeoun^ in favor of-Infoxmationrrwhich i s bothr-meanlngfnl -andrtlmely:. In addition, the decision involves a question of fact as to application^of that "balancing test to the x e a l i t i e s ef- a specificr program^^-at^-a-specifie^tirne^- " With xespect to jndiciaL xeview^of such mixe^^^ques^- t ions- of law-and-f act, t he ^Supreme zCouxtiias^authoxized^^ a practical ^standaxd =of xeview ,rrthe fixational-t)asis^M:est|E^ - 7 -