(Download) "Environmental Defense Fund v. Tennessee Valley Authority" by Sixth Circuit. United States Court Of Appeals ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

eBook details

Title: Environmental Defense Fund v. Tennessee Valley Authority
Author : Sixth Circuit. United States Court Of Appeals
Release Date : January 22, 1974
Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
Pages : * pages
Size : 68 KB

Description

This action was instituted in the court below to enjoin T.V.A. from completing construction of the Tellico Dam Project on the Little Tennessee River in Tennessee. The district court first enjoined completion of the project because of its conclusion that T.V.A. had not complied with the National Environment Policy Act (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 been planned and its construction begun before the effective date of the Act. This court, in an opinion written by Circuit Judge McCree, rejected this contention and affirmed 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 a hearing on the merits (from September 17th through September 20th). It considered the final impact statement filed by T.V.A. on February 10, 1973. It pointed out in its extensive opinion that the final statement consisted of three volumes totaling approximately 600 pages and found that the statement was an adequate compliance with the requirements of NEPA. Environmental Defense Fund et al. v. T.V.A. et al., 371 F.Supp. 1004 (E.D.Tenn.1973). The court also rejected the contention that the Project was in violation of any other federal law, including the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 470f and Executive Order No. 11573, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. A succinct description of the Project is set forth by the district court in its latest opinion: