ELR Citation: ELR 20062
No(s). 20164-1 (W.D. Mo. Nov 8, 1973)

The final environmental impact statement and its supplement for the Corps of Engineers Truman Dam project adequately comply with the requirements of NEPA despite plaintiffs' allegations that certain alternatives were inadequately examined and that the cost-benefit analysis lacked the support of scientific data. Plaintiffs' failure to mention either of these alleged deficiencies in their comments on the draft EIS, while it does not constitute a waiver of the right to challenge the final statement on these grounds, may nonetheless be taken into account by the court in deciding whether the final EIS treated these matters adequately. Both plaintiffs' proposed points and data for inclusion in the draft EIS and their objections to that statement were appended to the final EIS, and the administrative and legislative decisionmakers rather than the court must judge whether plaintiffs' data regarding cost-benefit questions has more credibility than that used in the final statement. The court notes that plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief constitute an attempt to broaden the scope of judicial EIS review beyond the provisions of NEPA and dismisses the complaint.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Arthur A. Benson
1020 Commerce Tower
Kansas City, MO 64105

Edward Lee Rogers
162 Old Town Road
East Setauket, NY 11733

Counsel for Defendants
David N. Proctor, Jr. Asst. U.S. Attorney
549 U.S. Courthouse
Kansas City, MO 64106

Irwin L. Schroeder
Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530

Patrick D. Hardigan
Margolin & Kirwan
1000 City National Bank Building
928 Grand Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64106

Donald R. Byrd Asst. Attorney General
Supreme Court Building
Jefferson City, MO 65101