ELR Citation: ELR 20248
No(s). 71-H-983 (S.D. Tex. Feb 16, 1973)

The Wallisville Dam Project, and the Trinity River Project of which it is a part, are both enjoined for inadequate NEPA impact statements. If the Corps can demonstrate that the Wallisville Project has sufficient local purposes to be considered independent of the Trinity Project, an adequate impact statement on the local Wallisville Project will act to dissolve the injunction on that project. However, if the Wallisville Project is not sufficiently local in nature, the injunction will remain until the impact statement prepared on the entire Trinity Project is completed by the Corps.

Noting the claimed important and predominately local purposes of the Wallisville Project, the court originally denied a temporary injunction. However, the decision on the merits finds that the claimed local purposes are not adequately supported in the Wallisville impact statement, and that further evidence is necessary to determine the true character and purposes of the Wallisville Project.

The existing Wallisville environmental impact statement is insufficient under NEPA, since it lacks the requisite detail and fails to satisfy the full-disclosure requirements of the Act. Alternatives to the present project are inadequately considered, and there is no indication that genuine efforts have been made to mitigate any of the major impacts on the environment resulting from the construction of the project. There is little support in the record for the Corps' failure to defer to the expert judgment of other federal agencies which have expressed opinions with respect to significant environmental impacts. Because the court finds that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case of defendants' noncompliance with NEPA, the burden of proof is on the Corps to demonstrate that it has fully complied with NEPA.

The Corps' benefit-cost analysis procedures for both the Wallisville and Trinity River Projects are deficient under NEPA because they consider and evaluate selected environmentally related benefits without also considering and evaluating environmentally related costs. Before an impact statement for the Wallisville or Trinity Project may be completed and adequately reviewed, Corps procedures must be brought to the attention of Congress, the appropriate federal agencies, and the Council on Environmental Quality, in order that appropriate policy decisions may be made to assist the Corps and the court in assessing the completeness of the impact statement. These must include the determination of proper methods for quantifying and evaluating environmental amenities.

Both the Wallisville and Trinity Projects are enjoined in view of the uncertainty surrounding the character and purposes of the Wallisville Project. To the extent that Wallisville is a segment of the master plan for the Trinity Project, directions as to the preparation of impact statements apply to both projects in order to assist the court in enforcing "the letter and spirit of NEPA." Further, the Corps of Engineers must prepare impact statements for each major component of the Trinity River Basin development program, including Wallisville, as well as one assessing the cumulative environmental impact. Each impact statement will be given the same general agency and congressional review that new projects currently receive under the Corps of Engineers' regulations. In view of the circumstances in this case, Congress, the appropriate federal agencies and the Council on Environmental Quality must pass upon and render decisions on the Wallisville and Trinity Projects as well as other components in the light of NEPA. Satisfying the requirements of NEPA will necessitate ascertaining the true purposes and character of the Wallisville Project.

If and when the Corps can present additional evidence of Wallisville's local purposes, and if the project possesses, in reality, substantial local purposes, then the injunction as to Wallisville will be dissolved upon the resubmission of an environmental impact statement which satisfies the requirements of NEPA as outlined in the opinion. On the other hand, if such evidence is inadequate under the law and the claimed primarily local purposes are not demonstrated, the Wallisville Project will then be viewed only as the first segment of the Trinity Project. In that event, further construction of Wallisville will be delayed to await completion of the Trinity environmental impact statement assessing the cumulative impact of the overall Trinity Project, including Wallisville, in a manner that satisfies NEPA. Such statement must be reviewed and accepted by Congress, the relevant federal agencies and the Council on Environmental Quality.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Robert H. Singleton
Butler, Binion, Rice, Cook & Knapp
1100 Esperson Building
Houston, TX 77002

Lawrence D. Thompson
2120 Travis Street
Houston, TX 77002

James W. Moorman
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
311 California Street, Suite 311
San Francisco, CA 94104

Counsel for Defendants
Anthony J.P. Farris United States Attorney
Jack Shepherd Chief Assistant, United States Attorney
Charles B. Wolfe Assistant United States Attorney
U.S. Courthouse
515 Rusk Avenue
Houston, TX 77002

Counsel for Trinity River Authority of Texas, Intervenor
Martin Harris
Barry Bishop
Clark, Thomas, Harris, Denius & Winters
12th Floor, Capital National Bank Building
Austin, TX 78701

Counsel for City of Houston and Coastal Industrial Water Authority of Texas
William A. Olson City Attorney
Edward A. Cazares First Assistant City Attorney
Joseph G. Rollins Senior Assistant City Attorney
Houston, TX 77002

Counsel for City of Fort Worth, Intervenor
S.G. Johndroe City Attorney
Fort Worth, TX 76102

Counsel for City of Dallas, Intervenor
N. Alex Bickley City Attorney
Carroll R. Graham
Peter R. Thompson
Dallas, TX 75201