Sierra Club v. Gilbert Stamm and other legal cases involving environmental impact statements

Page 1

6 £RC 1848 Sierra Club v. Stamm Sierra Club v. Stamm problem involved. That, however, is hardly ground to disregard the pro and con dis­cussions in the statement of the various is­sues involved in the project. It is certainly not grounds for assuming that the subjective conclusions are merely after-the-fact ration­alizations. In the eyes of many proponents of various points of view which have been downgraded or discarded in an impact statement that statement may well seem to be imperfect, but '[I]t is doubtful that any agency, however objective, however sincere, however well-staffed, and however well-fi­nanced, could come up with a perfect envi­ronmental impact statement in connection with any major project.' " Here, with a series of impact statements, the same point is even more noticeable. 8. The Court notes that the compliance with the master plan will enable Metropolitan Dade County to comply with the July 1, 1977, requirements of 33 U.S.C. § 1311(6)(1), the date by which all publicly owned treatment works must achieve secondary treatment. Metropolitan Dade County is also past the January 1, 1973, deadline provided in Section 403.086, Florida Statutes, for achieving sec­ondary treatment by municipal treatment fa­cilities. It is the Court's view that the EPA and the Intervenors have demonstrated with sub­stantive competent evidence that the decision to fund the "anti-pollution" master plan was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discre­tion. In sum, in the opinion of this Court, de­fendants have done to the fullest extent pos­sible everything the NEPA and the WPCA require them to do before proceeding with the "major Federal action significantly affecting the environment". Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: 1. The motions of defendants for summary judgment be and the same are hereby granted. In the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact and defendants being entitled to a favor­able judgment as a matter of law, summary fi­nal judgment is hereby entered in favor of de­fendants and against the City of North Miami. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judg­ment be and the same is hereby denied, there being no material facts in dispute as to defend­ants' compliance with the National Environ­mental Policy Act of 1970 or the Federal Wa­ter Pollution Control Amendments of 1972. SIERRA CLUB v. STAMM U.S. District Court District of Utah Central Division SIERRA CLUB, a nonprofit California corporation, TROUT UNLIMITED, a non­profit Michigan corporation, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., a nonprofit New York corporation, and ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, a nonprofit New York corporation, v. GIL­BERT STAMM, individually and as Com­missioner, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation; DA­VID L. CRANDALL, individually and as Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Reclama­tion; A. S. D'ALLESSANDRO, individually and as Construction Engineer, Bureau of Rec­lamation; ROGERS C. B. MORTON, indi­vidually and as Secretary of the U.S. Depart­ment of Interior, Defendants; THE STATE OF UTAH, THE CENTRAL UTAH WA­TER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, SALT L A K E C O U N T Y W A T E R CON­SERVANCY DISTRICT, METROPOLI­TAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE CITY, and UINTAH WATER CON­SERVANCY DISTRICT, Defendants in In­tervention, No. C-74-9, June 21, 1974 LAND 1. Federal, state, and local regulation - Special land uses - Construction (§8.413) Federal, state, and local regulation - Administrative agencies - In gen­eral (§8.601) WATER Federal, state, and local regulation - Administrative agencies - In gen­eral (§28.601) Liability by industry - Construction (§32.20) National Environmental Policy Act does not require Bureau of Reclamation to pre­pare single comprehensive environmental im­pact statement that will cover all phases of Centra! Utah reclamation project whose final segments are only in preliminary plan­ning stage, and is satisfied by preparation of separate impact statements that assess envi­ronmental impact of each independently via­ble portion of project and that relate each independent segment to overall reclamation UDik, LAND 2. Federal, state, and local regulation - Special land uses - Construction (§8.413) ^ V ^ Federal, state, and local regulation - Administrative agencies - In gen­eral (§8.601) WATER Federal, state, and local regulation - Administrative agencies - In gen­eral (§28.601) Liability by industry - Construction (§32.20) National Environmental Policy Act is sa­tisfied by Bureau of Reclamation's environ­mental impact statement that fully describes environmental effects of Strawberry aqueduct portion of Central Utah project's Bonneville unit and that rigorously and objectively ana­lyzes alternatives to aqueduct, including al­ternative of developing ground water supplies. LAND 3. Federal, state, and local regulation - Special land uses - Construction (§8.413) Federal, state, and local regulation - Administrative agencies - In gen­eral (§8.601) WATER , / Federal, state, and local regulation - Administrative agencies - In gen­eral (§28.601) Liability by industry - Construction (§32.20) National Environmental Policy Act does not require Bureau of Reclamation, in its environmental impact statement concerning Strawberry aqueduct portion of Central Utah reclamation project's Bonneville unit, to analyze aqueduct's benefit-cost ratio in monetary terms, and requires quantitative description of aqueduct's environmental ef­fects only if such description is reasonably Risible; if not, appropriate qualitative de­scription is sufficient. STATUTES Federal - National Environmental Policy Act (§95.011) Construed. V_> \J Action by environmental groups to enjoin construction on Bonneville unit of Central Utah project pending compliance with NEPA. Judgment for defendants; complaint dis­missed. H. Anthony Ruckel and Allen W. Stokes, If. Sierra Cluh I paal fWone* Pnr>,t n«f,,,».- 6 ERC 1849 Colo.; Curtis K. Oberhansly and William Lockhart, Salt Lake City, Utah, for plaintiffs. C. Nelson Day, U.S. attorney, Edward W. Clyde, Dallin W. Jensen, and Joseph Novak, all of Salt Lake City; Andrew Fj Walch, De­partment of Justice, Washington, D.C., and Hugh Colton, Vernal, Utah, for defendants. Full Text of Opinion RITTER.J.: This matter, having come on for trial before the above entitled court starting on April 1, 1974, with the Honorable Willis W. Ritter, Chief Judge thereof, presiding, and the plain­tiffs having appeared through their attorneys of record, H. Anthony Ruckei, Curtis K. Oberhansley and Dennis F. Olsen, and the de­fendants, having appeared through their at­torneys of record, C. Nelson Day and Andrew F. Walch, and the defendants in intervention, having appeared through their attorneys of record, Edward W. Clyde, Dallin W. Jensen, Joseph Novak and Hugh Colton, and the par­ties, having introduced oral and documentary evidence, and the matter having been argued orally and by written memoranda, and the Court, being now fully advised in the prem­ises, makes these Findings of Fact and Con­clusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This action was filed by Plaintiff envi­ronmental groups against Secretary of Interior Rogers C. B. Morton and certain federal offi­cers and employees in the Bureau of Reclama­tion, to enjoin them from continuing construc­tion on the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project. The Bonneville Unit is an on­going, partially constructed reclamation project designed to develop and provide water for beneficial uses within both the Uinta and Bonneville Basins in the State of Utah. The State of Utah and several water districts whose inhabitants will use the project waters were permitted to intervene as parties Defendant. The Complaint prays for declaratory and in­junctive relief, and Plaintiffs filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin the opening of bids and any other actions directed toward construction of Currant Creek Dam or attendant facilities. Defendants voluntarily agreed to refrain from such actions pending a decision on the merits in the district court. Trial upon the merits commenced April 1, 1974. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked un­der 28 U.S.C. 1331(a) (Federal Question), 28 U.S.C, 1361 (Mandamus), 28 U.S.C. 2201- 02 (Declaratory Judgment), and 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq. (Administrative Procedure Act). Venue is based on 28 U.S.C. 1391. 2. The Plaintiffs are the Sierra Club, a non-profit California corporatior/i; Trout Un-