Central Utah Project Litigation Documents

Page 56

on^appeal^^houIrO %e^=and=is^raccepted^by us*- The^nexir question- then i s whether the Strawberry system as thus "found" by the t r i a l court can be deemed an independent "major Federal action" as that term i s used in 42 U.S.C. § 4332. We agree with the t r i a l court that the Strawberry system does constitute such Federal action. In support of our conclusion see such cases as Sierra Club v. Calloway, 499 F.2d 982 (5th Cir. 1974), and Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Armstrong, 352 F.Supp. 50 (N.D.Cal. 1972), supplemental opinion, 356 F.Supp. 131 (N.D.Cal.) 1973), aff'd on appeal, 487 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1973). Brief reference to these c a s e s will prove helpful. TherrCalloway^case co ncexns t her^xindltylilivex^J>ro3eet^±in._. Texas-,--- This i s a- tremendous^undextalcing-rwliich^zenvisions^a straightening^ o f the Trinity Hivex-and t h e construction of a channel of a width of 200 feet and a depth of 12 f e e t from the Houston Ship Channel in Galveston Bay to Fort Worth, a distance of 363 miles. The l a t e s t projected cost estimate i s $1,356,000,000 The W a l l i s v i l l e - P r o j e c t involves the-construction of a dam at the-mouth of t h e - T r i n t t y Hi vex. - The^f i nal impact statement re-lated to the W a l l i s v i l l e Project, and in the^rial-oouxt^the environmental i s t s -obtained=ihjuncti;ve=rxelief on the:gxound\_ihat the impact-statement did not comply^ with t h e ^ t a t u t e - b e c a u s e the W a l l i s v i l l e Project was^ not- i n and o f i t s e l f an tndependent^major Federal- a c t i o n ," but merely an increment of t h e Trinity River Projector and that-a f i nal Impact ^statement t o x t he who! erpxcr^ j e c t was necessary-before work couldJ>e commenced-on the WalULs-_ v i l l e P r o j e c t . In Xeversing^on appeal^ therEifthrrCiri clared-as follows:^ - 9 -