Wilderness Society v. Hickel
Decision Date | 28 April 1970 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 928-70. |
Citation | 325 F. Supp. 422 |
Parties | The WILDERNESS SOCIETY, Friends of the Earth, and Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Walter J. HICKEL, Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D. C., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
James W. Moorman, Charles R. Halpern, Victor H. Kramer, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs.
Herbert Pittle, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amerada Hess Corporation; Atlantic Pipe Line Company, a subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Company; B. P. Pipe Line Company, a subsidiary of B. P. Alaska, Inc.; Home Pipe Line Company, a subsidiary of Home Oil Company of Canada; Humble Pipe Line Company, a subsidiary of Humble Oil and Refining Co.; Mobil Pipe Line Company, a subsidiary of Mobil Oil Co.; Phillips Petroleum Co.; and Union Oil Company of California; (also collectively known as the Trans Alaska Pipe Line System (TAPS) and referred to thereinafter as "the Companies") have applied to Defendant for certain permits involving public lands of the United States under the jurisdiction of Defendant.
2. The Companies have applied for the following permits:
3. For the purpose of constructing the pipe line and the haul road, in excess of 12 million cubic yards of gravel will be needed from the public lands administered by Defendant from various sites near the route.
4. Defendant is ready to issue a permit for the construction surface and haul road referred to in paragraph 2(c) hereof and to authorize the sale of gravel from the public lands for the construction thereof.
5. Plaintiffs are three conservation organizations. Plaintiff, The Wilderness Society is a nonprofit corporation incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia, was organized in 1935 and claims a membership of approximately 60,000 persons. Plaintiff, Friends of the Earth is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. Plaintiff Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.
6. Plaintiffs have submitted affidavits to the Court in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, and Defendant has submitted affidavits in opposition thereto.
7. Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Defendant presented argument on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on April 13, 1970.
8. Defendant has at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilderness Society v. Morton, 72-1796 to 72-1798.
...before the District Court in 1970 when this action was commenced and preliminary injunctive relief obtained. See Wilderness Society v. Hickel, D.D.C., 325 F.Supp. 422 (1970). This burden was assumed not in the hope of obtaining a monetary award, nor to protect an interest peculiar to appell......
-
Wilderness Society v. Morton
...Court, on April 23, 1970, granted a preliminary injunction against issuance of the permits and rights-of-way. See Wilderness Society v. Hickel, D.D.C., 325 F.Supp. 422 (1970). When the question of a permanent injunction came before the District Court on August 15, 1972, the court, in a brie......
-
Sierra Club v. Hardin
...for the District of Columbia enjoined the construction of the Alaska Pipeline pending compliance with the Act. Wilderness Society v. Hickel, 325 F.Supp. 422 (D.D.C.1970). In a somewhat less obvious case, the U. S. District Court for the District of Arizona preliminarily enjoined the Corps o......
-
Edwardsen v. Morton
...B. P. Alaska, Inc. A copy is attached as Exhibit A to defendants' motion for summary judgment. 19 These cases are Wilderness Society, et al. v. Hickel, D.C., 325 F.Supp. 422, and Cordova District Fisheries Union v. Morton et al., Civil Action No. 861-71. Copies of the pleadings are attached......
-
CHAPTER 2 THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969
...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. In Bucklein v. Volpe, ____F.Supp.____, ......