United States v. Florida Power & Light Company
| Decision Date | 16 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 70-328. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Walter Kiechel, Jr., Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Department of Justice, and Martin Green, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., and Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff.
William C. Steel, of Scott, McCarthy, Steel, Hector & Davis, Miami, Fla., for defendant.
ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Lower Biscayne Bay, in the State of Florida, has been described as an area which supports a rare combination of terrestrial, marine, and amphibious life. The United States Government has initiated this lawsuit to protect this area which encompasses the Biscayne National Monument. The alleged despoiler is Florida Power & Light Company and the evil sought to be eradicated is thermal pollution. At this juncture the government seeks a preliminary injunction to stop the power company from operating its Turkey Point plant in a manner which results in the discharge of coolant water heated to a temperature allegedly harmful to the marine life of the Bay.
In a previous statement, made in open court, I delineated the legal principles under which I determined the application for a preliminary injunction should proceed.1 At this time, after careful consideration of the evidence presented and a view of the Turkey Point area I have decided that the application for a preliminary injunction should be denied. It is my conclusion that the government has not carried the burden of showing that the present operation of the Turkey Point plant is causing irreparable damage to lower Biscayne Bay. It is a basic principle that preliminary injunctive relief should not be granted in the absence of proof of irreparable harm and a substantial likelihood of success when the case is fully tried on the merits. District 50, United Mine Workers of America v. International Union, United Mine Workers of America, 412 F.2d 165 (D.C.Cir. 1969).
I do find that the present warm water discharge causes some damage but it is minimal and retrievable. In this regard plans are in process to reduce the temperature of the discharge water to a benign level by July of 1971. As I do not find irreparable damage, the government's request that Florida Power & Light be required to submit a plan to cool the discharge water is denied.
While I denied relief sought at this stage pertaining to two nuclear power units being installed at Turkey Point,2 I am concerned about the large amount of heated water the units will discharge when they begin operation in 1971 and 1972. Therefore, I do plan to receive further evidence on this point at hearings to be scheduled at a later date.
1 "Gentlemen, after a careful consideration of the cases involving Section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, I have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connecticut Action Now. Inc. v. Roberts Plating Co.
...903 (1960); Wyandotte Transp. Co. v. United States, 389 U.S. 191, 88 S.Ct. 379, 19 L.Ed.2d 407 (1967); United States v. Florida Power & Light Co., 311 F.Supp. 1391 (S.D.Fla.,1970); Bass Anglers Sportsman's Soc. v. Scholze Tannery, Inc., supra, 329 F.Supp. 339, 347-348 (E.D. Tenn.1971); Unit......
-
Bass Anglers Sportsman's Soc. v. Scholze Tannery, Inc.
...being the propriety of injunctive relief for alleged violations of § 407, the recent case United States of America v. Florida Power & Light Company, 311 F.Supp. 1391 (S.D.Fla., 1970) holds that "case law interpretation of Section 13, although arguable, endows the Court with the authority to......
-
United States v. Outboard Marine Corp.
...Inc., 498 F.2d 597 (3d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 927, 95 S.Ct. 1124, 43 L.Ed.2d 397 (1975); United States v. Florida Power & Light Co., 311 F.Supp. 1391, 1392 n. 1 (S.D.Fla.1970). 9 See footnote 3 10 The Second Amended Complaint alleges discharges beginning in 1959. It appears to be......
-
U.S. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 73-1727
...Bass Anglers Sportsman's Soc'y v. Scholze Tannery, Inc., 329 F.Supp. 339 (E.D.Tenn.1971); 1971); United States v. Florida Power & Light Co., 311 F.Supp. 1391 (S.D.Fla.1970); Cf. Wyandotte Transportation Co. v. United States, 389 U.S. 191, 88 S.Ct. 379, 19 L.Ed.2d 407 (1967); United States v......