An attempt by several leading environmental organizations to obtain a definitive statement governing the transfer of environmental lawsuits at the instance of federal defendants, usually from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to forums situated at or near the location of the disputed project, failed in The Jicarilla Apache Tribe of Indians v. Pratt, No. 71-1676 (D.C.Cir., Sept. 1, 1971), when the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit summarily denied plaintiff's Petition for a Writ of Mandamus designed to halt the transfer of one of the "Four Corners" cases from the District of Columbia court to the District Court of Arizona. For an analysis of the "Four Corners" litigation see 1 ELR Dig. [183-185], and last month's Summary and Comment, 1 ELR 10113-16. The writ was directed against U.S. District Court Judge Henry Pratt who had, from the bench, granted defendants' motion to transfer on Aug. 19, 1971, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391 and 1404, the court basing its decision on, "the ease of access, the sources of proof, the availability of compulsory process, the possiblity of viewing the premises, the better understanding of regional problems . . . the physical location of the property involved and a number of other reasons. . . ." Organizations involved in the change of venue litigation were the National Wildlife Federation and Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., plaintiffs in Jicarilla, and Friends of the Earth, Wilderness Society, and Natural Resources Defense Council, which jointly filed an amici curiae brief.

The decision of plaintiffs and amici to test the transfer question in Jicarilla indicated a conclusion on their part that the Department of Justice and the various federal regulatory agencies had adopted an affirmative policy to scatter environmental lawsuits literally to the "four corners" of the nation, that, apart from the financial burdens placed thereby on public interest groups heavily engaged in such litigation, the policy frequently resulted in a choice of forums far less sympathetic to environmental issues than are the District of Columbia courts, and that the apparent acquiescence of D.C. district court judges in this policy constituted an abuse of discretion—plaintiff's choice of forum is usually controlling—and could gravely endanger the success of future environmental litigation. These concerns were perhaps best summarized by amici at pp. 5-6 of their brief: