| OCR Text |
Show 5-75 LITIGATION 5 ELR 20209 ii SIERRA CLUB v. STAMM, No. 74-1425 (10th Cir. Nov. 29,1974) The Bureau of Reclamation's environmental impact statement for construction of the Strawberry Aqueduct and Collection System in Utah adequately fulfills the requirements of NEPA. The Strawberry System is a discj^te^rnj^oijTjedexajACtiQn, and noLanilL-tegral or indivisible part of either the larger Bonneville Unit or the entire central Utah water diversion project. The EIS therefore need not consider all the environmental impacts of these larger projects, and was properly limited to an examination of the Strawberry System's effects. The court also rules that the EIS gave sufficient consideration to alternatives, and adequately covered the System's , cost-benefit ratio, even though no dollar figure was fixed for either environmental losses or benefits. The lower court's dismissal of the/ complaint with prejudice is affirmed. Counsel for Plaintiffs Dennis F. Olsen Curtis K. Oberhansly Kinghorn, Oberhansly & O'Connell 12 Exchange Place Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 H. Anthony Ruckel Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc. 209 16th Street Denver, Colo. 80202 Counsel for Defendants Dirk D. Snel Raymond N. Zagone Andrew F. Walch Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 C. Nelson Day U.S. Attorney Federal Building 125 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Edward W. Clyde Clyde, Mecham & Pratt 351 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Hugh W. Colton Colton & Hammond Vernal, Utah 84078 McWilliams,_JJ ~~ThTs proceeding was instituted in the United States District Court for the District of Utah by four nonprofit environmental corporations against the Secretary of the Interior, Rogers C...B. Morton, and certain officers of the Bureau of Reclamation. The State of Utah and its state water districts later intervened as intervening defendants. The plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment and injunctive relief based on the alleged failure of the defendants to file a Final Environmental Statement which complied with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. After a six-day evidentiary hearing the trial court found and concluded that the Final Environmental Statement prepared and filed by the defendants did comport with the statute and accordingly entered judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs now appeal. Our study of the record leads us to conclude that the trial court did not err in its determination that the Final Environmental Statement with which we are here concerned met the requirements of the statute, and we therefore affirm. Some background facts are necessary to an understanding of the matter. The Central Utah Project is a plan to collect, develop and divert water in the Bonneville and Uinta Basins of central Utah for municipal, industrial, agricultural and recreational purposes. The project is an "on-going" one in the sense that certain of its components were completed and in use, even before the advent of the National Environmental Policy Act; whereas, the entire project as presently contemplated will in all probability not be finally completed till sometime in the next century. The Central Utah Project is composed of six units, one of which is the Bonneville Unit, and it is the Bonneville Unit with which we are here concerned. The Bonneville Unit involves the collection of water in the Uinta Basin by a series of dams, reservoirs, aqueducts, and the like, with the water thus collected being transferred across the Wasatch Mountains for use in the Bonneville Basin. This particular unit is about 16% completed at the present time. The Bonneville Unit, where construction activity is now focused, is itself broken down into six component systems, one of which is the Strawberry Aqueduct and Collection System. This latter system in turn embraces the so-called Currant Creek Dam and Reservoir: The Government has most recently been involved in the letting of contracts preparatory to building the Currant Creek Dam, and it is this fact which has precipitated the present controversy. The immediate relief sought by the plaintiffs was an injunction to prohibit any further action in connection with the Currant Creek Dam. As indicated, plaintiffs' claim is based on their belief that the Final Environmental Statement filed by the defendants is inadequate. Let us look then at the Final Environmental Statement here under attack. The Statement was prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the Interior and filed with the Council on Environmental Quality on August 2, 1973. The Secretary of the Interior subsequently announced on November 8, 1973, that construction would proceed on the Currant Creek Dam as "the next step in the construction of the Strawberry Aqueduct." Although there was perhaps some misunderstanding, at least initially, as to the intended scope of the Statement, it would appear that now it is agreed that the Statement is intended to be a final one only as to the Strawberry Aqueduct and Collection System, even though the Statement makes reference to other components of the Bonneville Unit, as well as to other units within the Central Utah Project. The Statement clearly indicates that final impact statements will be filed on |
