Environmental Defense Fund v. Corps of Eng. of US Army, LR-70-C-203.
Decision Date | 19 February 1971 |
Docket Number | No. LR-70-C-203.,LR-70-C-203. |
Citation | 325 F. Supp. 749 |
Parties | ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., the Ozark Society, Arkansas Audubon Society, Inc., Arkansas Ecology Center, Pratt Remmel, Jr., and Russell Harper v. CORPS OF ENGINEERS OF the UNITED STATES ARMY, Stanley R. Resor, Secretary of the Army, and General Frederick B. Clarke, Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers of the United States Army. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Richard S. Arnold, Texarkana, Ark., Edward Lee Rogers, Stony Brook, N. Y., for plaintiff.
W. H. Dillahunty, U. S. Atty., Little Rock, Ark., for defendants.
This case was tried to the Court on its merits on February 8, 9 and 10, 1971. At the conclusion of the trial, the case was argued orally by the attorneys. The parties were then given until February 16, 1971, within which to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Upon receipt thereof the case was taken under submission by the Court. This opinion will constitute the Court's fifth and final memorandum in this case.
In its letter memorandum of December 22, 1970, the Court stated:
Later in that opinion the Court stated:
"The only `cause of action' with respect to which the Court believes that the plaintiffs will probably prevail at the hearing upon the merits (unless the defendants prior thereto take certain administrative action) is that characterized as the `First Cause of Action' in the complaint — that is, the claim arising under, and by virtue of, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq."
On January 21, 1971, the Court filed its "Memorandum Opinion Number Four," which dealt specifically with plaintiffs' "First Cause of Action," which is based upon the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq., (hereinafter referred to as NEPA). At page 9 of that opinion the Court stated that the testimony "left the general impression with the Court that, if no work had been done on the Gillham Dam project, the defendants would be approaching the environmental impact study with a different, more open-minded, attitude." This determination was reinforced and documented by the testimony introduced at the trial on the merits.
Much weight was given by the defendants, both at the original hearing and at the trial on the merits, to the fact that the project was approximately two-thirds completed. In commenting on this point the Court stated in its Memorandum Opinion Number Four:
Later in that memorandum, the Court analyzed the "Environmental Statement" (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7) and pointed out the various environmental "impacts" suggested by the plaintiffs which had not been evaluated by the defendants or described adequately in the impact statement. The Court concluded:
No "additional studies or hearings" were undertaken by defendants between the conclusion of the November hearing and the February hearing upon the merits.
On January 21, 1971, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion for Leave to File First Amendment to Complaint." On February 2, 1971, this motion was granted. The amendment set forth the plaintiffs' "Tenth Cause of Action" and "Eleventh Cause of Action." The latter is germane here because it makes explicit the contentions of plaintiffs with respect to the environmental impact statement filed by the defendants on October 5, 1970, after the commencement of the suit. The plaintiffs contend that said statement was not in fact a "detailed statement" within the meaning of § 102 of NEPA, did not adequately and properly cover the subjects required by the statute, and did not substantially comply with the "Interim Guidelines" issued by the Council on Environmental Quality.
Although a "new'`' impact statement was filed by the defendants on January 22, 1971, (Defendants' Exhibit 12), the Court has concluded that the latter is essentially the same as the one filed in October, 1970. Both fall far short of the requirements of the law. The "new" statement does not even treat of problems brought out by the testimony in the November hearing. See discussion below.
Upon the basis of the evidence and the law, the Court now concludes that the plaintiffs are entitled to an order enjoining the defendants from continuing with the Gillham Dam project and, more particularly, with the construction of the embankment across the Cossatot River, unless and until they comply with the provisions of NEPA. A final order is being entered accordingly.
The Court here adopts by reference all findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in each of its prior memoranda, excepting only as same may be inconsistent with, or changed or modified by, the findings and conclusions set forth below.
Before discussing plaintiffs' "First Cause of Action" and "Eleventh Cause of Action," the Court wishes to make explicit its rulings on all other matters.
The Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs' second, third, and tenth causes of action should be dismissed. This determination means that, of the plaintiffs' eleven asserted "causes of action," the Court is entering its order dismissing all but the first and the eleventh.
In its third memorandum, dated December 22, 1970, the Court indicated its intention to dismiss plaintiffs' fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth causes of action. In that opinion it tentatively left open the issues raised by plaintiffs' second and third causes of action. With respect to these causes of action the Court there stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sierra Club v. Watkins
...full disclosure law,' for the agency decision makers and the general public.") (quoting Environmental Defense Fund, Inc v. Corps of Engineers, 325 F.Supp. 749, 759 (E.D.Ark.1971)). The cornerstone of this law is § 102(2)(C), codified as 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), which in every recommendation or......
-
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Callaway, Civ. No. H-74-268.
...to postpone the project while such a study is being undertaken is a question for the decisionmaker. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Eng'rs, 325 F.Supp. 749, 760 (E.D. Ark.1971), adhered to, 342 F.Supp. 1211 (E.D.Ark.), aff'd, 470 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S.......
-
STATE OF MO. EX REL. ASHCROFT v. DEPT. OF ARMY, ETC.
...them to do both separately.'" EDF, Inc. v. Froehlke, 473 F.2d 346, 356 (8th Cir. 1972), quoting from EDF, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers of the U.S. Army, 325 F.Supp. 749, 754 (E.D.Ark.1971). The Court has previously found that defendants have fully complied with the requirements of NEPA. This ......
-
Save Our Sound Fisheries Ass'n v. Callaway
... ... Howard H. CALLAWAY, Secretary of the Army, et al ... Civ. A. No. 5297 ... United ... Secretary of the Army and the Chief of the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army, as well ... award, the Corps prepared a draft "environmental impact statement" (EIS), see National ... 696 (S.D.N.Y.1972); Environmental Defense Fund v. Hardin, 325 F.Supp. 1401 (D.D.C.1971); ... ...
-
Administering the National Environmental Policy Act
...339 F. Supp. 806, 811, 2 ELR 20044 (E.D. Tenn. 1972), challenges to the Gillham Dam, see Environmental Def. Fund v. Corps of Eng’rs, 325 F. Supp. 749, 759, 1 ELR 20130 (E.D. Ark. 1971), and in the challenge to the never-built Interstate 485 in Atlanta, see Morningside-Lenox Park Ass’n v. Vo......
-
CHAPTER 2 THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969
...§ 4331(c). [2252] H. R. Rep. No. 765, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 8 (1969). [2253] Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers, 325 F.Supp. 749 (E.D. Ark. 1971). [2261] 325 F. Supp. 422 (D.D.C. 1970). [2262] 325 F. Supp. 749 (E.D. Ark. 1971). [2263] Only one exception has been found. I......
-
CHAPTER 1 ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND NATURAL RESOURCES ACTIVITIES: SOME FACTS, HISTORY AND REFLECTIONS ON EXPERIENCES UNDER UNITED STATES' LAW 1970-1996 AND SOME LESSONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF WORLDWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
...at p. 53. [58] See e.g., Section 304 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604. [59] Environmental Defense Fund v. Corps of Engineers, 325 F.Supp. 749, E.D.Ark., 1971. [60] Id., at 756. [61] Id, at 761. [62] Id. [63] Hereinafter "FWPCA" Pub. L. 92-500, 33 U.S.C. § 1251-1387 . [64] Pub. L. 80-8......