Environmental Defense Fund v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 74-1139.
Decision Date | 22 February 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 74-1139.,74-1139. |
Citation | 492 F.2d 466 |
Parties | ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Jon T. Brown, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs-appellants; Wallace L. Duncan, Fredrick D. Palmer, Washington, D.C., on brief; James Tripp, Lawrence R. Reno, of counsel.
Beauchamp E. Brogan, Knoxville, Tenn., for defendants-appellees; Robert H. Marquis, Gen. Counsel, Thomas A. Pedersen, Beverly S. Burvage, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tenn., on brief.
Before WEICK, McCREE and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
This action was instituted in the court below to enjoin T.V.A. from completing construction of the Tellico Dam Project on the Little Tennessee River in Tennessee. The district court first enjoined completion of the project because of its conclusion that T.V.A. had not complied with the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4331 et seq., by filing an adequate impact statement. Environmental Defense Fund, et al. v. T.V.A., 339 F.Supp. 806 (E.D. Tenn.1972). On appeal, it was contended that NEPA did not apply since the Project had been planned and its construction begun before the effective date of the Act. This court, in an opinion written by Circuit Judge McCree, rejected this contention and affirmed the judgment of the district court. Environmental Defense Fund, et al. v. T.V.A., et al., 468 F.2d 1164 (6th Cir.1972). On remand, the district court held a hearing on the merits (from September 17th through September 20th). It considered the final impact statement filed by T.V.A. on February 10, 1973. It pointed out in its extensive opinion that the final statement consisted of three volumes totaling approximately 600 pages and found that the statement was an adequate compliance with the requirements of NEPA. Environmental Defense Fund et al. v. T.V.A. et al., 371 F.Supp. 1004 (E.D.Tenn.1973). The court also rejected the contention that the Project was in violation of any other federal law, including the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470f and Executive Order No. 11573, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
A succinct description of the Project is set forth by the district court in its latest opinion:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Friends of the River v. F.E.R.C.
...Id. at 515. 25 See also North Slope Borough v. Andrus, 642 F.2d 589, 600-01 & n. 47 (D.C.Cir.1980); Environmental Defense Fund v. TVA, 492 F.2d 466, 468 n. 1 (6th Cir.1974) (administrative practicality bears on "alternatives" appropriately considered). 26 National Wildlife Found. v. Andrus,......
-
Mount Sutro Defense Committee Regents of University of California
... ... the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code section ... 34, 529 P.2d 66; Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Coastside Water Dist. (1972) 27 ... Page 375 ... Defense Fund v. Tennessee Valley Auth. (6th Cir. 1974) 492 F.2d 466, 468, ... ...
-
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
...statement for Tellico was in compliance with the law. Environmental Defense Fund v. TVA, 371 F.Supp. 1004 (ED Tenn.1973), aff'd, 492 F.2d 466 (CA6 1974).5 A few months prior to the District Court's decision dissolving the NEPA injunction, a discovery was made in the waters of the Little Ten......
-
Davis Mountains Trans-Pecos Heritage v. U.S.A.F.
...that even though NEPA is rigorous in its requirements, it does not require perfection or the impossible. Envtl. Defense Fund v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 492 F.2d 466, 468 n. 1 (6th Cir.1974) (citations omitted). "[N]o matter how well the EIS has been written, someone later can always find fault ......
-
Addressing barriers to watershed protection.
...Auth., 468 F.2d 1164 (6th Cir. 1972). However, the subsequent EIS was adequate. Environmental Defense Fund v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 492 F.2d 466 (6th Cir. 1974). It is hard to judge, however, how often the EIS actually resulted in project changes or mitigation that served watershed protec......
-
Judicial Predictability in United States Supreme Court Advocacy: an Analysis of the Oral Argument in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
...(6th Cir. 1972). 9. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347 (1970). 10. Environmental Defense Fund v. T.V.A., 371 F. Supp. 1004 (E.D. Tenn. 1973), aff'd, 492 F.2d 466 (6th Cir. 1974). 11. There are 68 dams throughout the Tennessee Valley, 22 of which are within 60 miles of Tellico Dam. Brief for Respondents......