Federal Appellate Court decision in the case of EDF v. TVA, upholding the lower court\u27s decision in favor of TVA, allowing the construction of the Tellico Dam to go forward.  This decision was published in West\u27s Federal Reporter at 492 F.2d 466 (1974)

McCree, Wade H.

Miller, William Ernest

Weick, Paul Charles

Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School

Boston College Law SchoolDigital Commons @ Boston College Law SchoolSnail Darter Documents The Snail Darter and the Dam2-22-1974Federal Appellate Court Decision inEnvironmental Defense Fund et al., PlaintiffsAppellees, v. Tennessee Valley Authority et al.,Defendants-Appellants, No. 74-1139Paul Charles WeickThe United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitWade H. McCreeThe United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitWilliam Ernest MillerThe United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitFollow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/darter_materialsPart of the Environmental Law CommonsThis Judicial Decision is brought to you for free and open access by the The Snail Darter and the Dam at Digital Commons @ Boston College LawSchool. It has been accepted for inclusion in Snail Darter Documents by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College LawSchool. For more information, please contact nick.szydlowski@bc.edu.Digital Commons CitationWeick, Paul Charles; McCree, Wade H.; and Miller, William Ernest, "Federal Appellate Court Decision in Environmental DefenseFund et al., Plaintiffs Appellees, v. Tennessee Valley Authority et al., Defendants-Appellants, No. 74-1139" (1974). Snail DarterDocuments. Paper 21.http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/darter_materials/21492 F.2d 466 (1974)ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY et al., Defendants-Appellees.No. 74-1139.United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.Argued December 7, 1973.Decided February 22, 1974.*467 Jon T. Brown, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs-appellants; Wallace L.Duncan, Fredrick D. Palmer, Washington, D.C., on brief; James Tripp, LawrenceR. Reno, of counsel.Beauchamp E. Brogan, Knoxville, Tenn., for defendants-appellees; Robert H.Marquis, Gen. Counsel, Thomas A. Pedersen, Beverly S. Burvage, TennesseeValley Authority, Knoxville, Tenn., on brief.Before WEICK, McCREE and MILLER, Circuit Judges.PER CURIAM.This action was instituted in the court below to enjoin T.V.A. from completingconstruction of the Tellico Dam Project on the Little Tennessee River inTennessee. The district court first enjoined completion of the project because of itsconclusion that T.V.A. had not complied with the National Environment PolicyAct (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 beenplanned and its construction begun before the effective date of the Act. This court,in an opinion written by Circuit Judge McCree, rejected this contention andaffirmed 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 ahearing on the merits (from September 17th through September 20th). Itconsidered the final impact statement filed by T.V.A. on February 10, 1973. Itpointed out in its extensive opinion that the final statement consisted of threevolumes totaling approximately 600 pages and found that the statement was anadequate compliance with the requirements of NEPA. Environmental DefenseFund et al. v. T.V.A. et al., 371 F.Supp. 1004 (E.D.Tenn.1973). The court alsorejected the contention that the Project was in violation of any other federal law,including the National Historic *468 Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470f and467468Executive Order No. 11573, and the Federal Water Pollution Control ActAmendments of 1972.A succinct description of the Project is set forth by the district court in its latestopinion:This litigation stems from the construction of a concrete and earthfilldam near the mouth of the Little Tennessee River. TVA will ultimatelyacquire thirty-eight thousand acres for development of the project.Sixteen thousand, five hundred acres will be inundated uponcompletion of the reservoir; the remaining acreage will be developedfor industrial, commercial, residential, and recreational purposes. Theproject plan also contemplates the creation of a new city, Timberlake,with a population of fifty thousand persons.The project calls for the impoundment of the first thirty-three miles ofthe Little Tennessee River. The river and its environs present anextremely attractive setting, and are the source of thousands of annualfishing and boating trips. The area contains rich agricultural land withapproximately twenty-five thousand, five hundred acres of the totalacreage taken in land use Classes I, II, III. Fort Loudoun, aneighteenth century English fortification, is located on the south bank ofthe river. This historic site will be saved from inundation but will loseits river setting. Historically, the river bottomland is also important asthe ancestral homeland of the Cherokee Indians. Several early Indianvillages have been identified, including Chota and Citico andconsiderable archeological work has been underway for the past fewyears.The Tellico Project is a multi-purpose water resource and regionaldevelopment project. The reservoir and connecting canal with FortLoudoun reservoir will serve to develop navigation, flood control, andelectric power generation. Other direct benefits claimed by the projectare recreational development, fish and wildlife use, water supply,shoreline development, and redevelopment. The project was firstauthorized by Congress on October 15, 1966. Construction on theconcrete portion of the dam began March 7, 1967 and was completedon March 28, 1969. To date, $45,465,000 has been appropriated forthe project, and over $35,000,000 has been spent. The currentestimated project cost is $69,000,000.A more detailed description of the background of the case and the nature of theProject is contained in the opinion of this Court on the first appeal and in thedistrict court's first opinion.We have carefully considered the contentions of appellants on the present appealin light of the lengthy record, including the briefs and oral arguments of therespective parties, and we find no error on the part of the district court indissolving the preliminary injunction and in dismissing the action.[1]For the reasons fully set forth in its well-reasoned opinion the judgment of thedistrict court isAffirmed.[1] Our examination of the final impact statement indicates that it is as thorough and complete on allpertinent features as could reasonably be expected. N.E.P.A., although rigorous in its requirements,does not require perfection, nor the impossible. In assessing the adequacy of such statement,practicability and reasonableness (See Environmental Defense Fund v. Corps of Eng., D.C. 342F.Supp. 1211 at 1217) are to be taken into account along with the broad purposes of the Act topreserve the values and amenities of the natural environment. This involves of course a balancingprocess which we think the district court correctly recognized and applied to this multi-purposeproject, a project admittedly entailing considerable ecological damage and disturbance but many off-setting economic and social benefits. The specific objections of appellants to the final statementappear to us to be overly technical and hypercritical.

Federal Appellate Court Decision in Environmental Defense Fund et al., Plaintiffs Appellees, v. Tennessee Valley Authority et al., Defendants-Appellants, No. 74-1139

Federal Appellate Court Decision in Environmental Defense Fund et al., Plaintiffs Appellees, v. Tennessee Valley Authority et al., Defendants-Appellants, No. 74-1139

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School

NELLCO Consortium Legal Scholarship Repository