| Title |
Central Utah Project Litigation Documents |
| Description |
Correspondence and documents concerning litigation for the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project; from the The Dorothy Harvey papers (1902-2005), a collection of materials focusing on the Central Utah Project (CUP), a water resource development program to use Utah's alloted share of the Colorado River. Includes correspondence, federal documents, project litigation materials. |
| Subject |
Central Utah Project. Bonneville Unit; Colorado River Storage Project (U.S.); Ute Indians--Claims; Water resources development--Environmental aspects--Utah; Natural resources--Environmental aspects--Utah; Natural resources--Management--Utah; Strawberry Aqueduct; Western Bands of Shoshoni Indians--Claims |
| Contributor |
Ruckel, H. Anthony; Oberhansly, Curtis K.; Owens, Wayne; Raskin, David C.; Leshy, John D.; Olsen, Dennis F.; Phillips, Howard K.; Barker, Robert W.; Hatch, Orrin G.; Blackwelder, Brent; Carlson, Peter; Lynn, Laurence E.; Horton, Jack O.; Reed, Nathaniel P.; Black, Kenneth E. |
| Additional Information |
Includes: Letters and documents concerning Sierra Club, et al. v. Gilbert Stamm, et al.; Water Resources Development Act of 1974; Letters from the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Policy Center; United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit case No. 74-1425 Sierra Club, etc., et al. v. Gilbert Stamm, etc., et al.; Case before the Indian Claims Commission: Western Shoshone Identifiable Group etc., et al. v. United States of America; Memo from Department of the Interior on the Central Utah Project, Bonneville Unit; Study from Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife: Stream Flows Recommended For the Uinta Mountain Streams, Central Utah Project; U.S. Dept. of Interior Water Projects Review Office Preliminary Information and Data Sheets for Bonneville Unit |
| Spatial Coverage |
Uinta Basin (Utah and Colo.); Little Dell Reservoir (Utah); Currant Creek Dam (Utah); Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation (Utah); Utah Lake (Utah); Provo River (Utah); Bonneville Basin (Utah); Salt Lake County (Utah); Jordanelle Reservoir (Utah); Uinta Mountains (Utah and Wyo.); Colorado River Watershed (Colo.-Mexico) |
| Collection Number and Name |
Accn2232 Bx 118 Fd 2; Dorothy Harvey papers |
| Rights Management |
Digital Image © 2010 University of Utah. All Rights Reserved. |
| Holding Institution |
J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah |
| Date |
1973; 1974; 1975; 1977; 1978; 1979; 1980 |
| Digitization Specifications |
Original scanned on Epson Expression 10000 XL and saved as 400 ppi TIFF. Display image generated in Contentdm. |
| Publisher |
Digitized by J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah |
| Type |
Text |
| ARK |
ark:/87278/s6hh6j1p |
| Setname |
wwdl_neh |
| ID |
1155349 |
| Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s6hh6j1p |
| Title |
Page 61 |
| Setname |
wwdl_neh |
| ID |
1155254 |
| OCR Text |
Show "NEPA's 'alternatives' discussion is subject to a construction of -reasonableness^- N. R.D.C., Inc. v. Morton, supra, 458nF72d~at 834. Certainly, the statute should not be employed as a crutch for chronic faultfinding. Accordingly, there is no need for an EIS to consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained, and whose implementation is deemed remote and speculative. JCci. at 834. Rather, the EIS need only set forth those alternatives 'sufficient to permit a reasoned choice.' .Ici. at 836. This has been done. See also Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. Seaborg, supra, 463 F.2d at 787; Pennsylvania Environmental Council v. Bartlett, 315 F.Supp. 238, 250 (M.D.Pa.1970)." As concerns cost-benefit ratio, the National Environmental Protection Act only requires that "presently unquantifled environment al=amenities^and values-*^* •*-' be ^giveifcappxopriate considerat ionrin atecisionmaking along- witfar^economic: and tech-nical considerations -."- 42 U. S.C. § 4332<B) . See also Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Armstrong, 352 F.Supp. 50 (N.D. Cal. 1973). This in our view does not require the fixing of a dollar figure to either environmental losses or benefits. Environmental Defense Fund v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 371 F.SuppT-1004 {E.D^Tenrnr 19731, affJLd, r492- F.2d 466 (6th Cir_ 1974). Our~study of the impact statement leads usio conclude that the cost-benefit matter is adequately^ covered therein. See^=Envixonmental-Defe nse^ Jund^ -1 nc^ v. Corps -of Engineers of ^ the United States Army, 492 F.2d 1123 (5th Cir. 1974). Judgme nt-af f ixme d. - 14 - |
| Reference URL |
https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s6hh6j1p/1155254 |
