Opinion ID: 363500
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: reconsideration of the prior approval of the sewer

Text: 18 PROJECT AND DETERMINATION OF EPA TO PREPARE AN EIS 19 As noted above at pages 6-7, EPA advised the court at a conference on February 3, 1978, that (1) its prior approval of the project without an EIS was or may have been based on inaccurate and inadequate information, and (2) it had decided (a) to prepare an EIS, at least as to certain areas, and (b) to hold further project action in abeyance until such a statement could be prepared, with necessary public participation and full consideration. 20 The congressional declaration of national environmental policy in NEPA provides: 21 (a) The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances and recognizing further the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man, declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans. 22 (b) In order to carry out the policy set forth in this chapter, it is the Continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may 23 (1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; 24 (2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; 25 (3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; 26 (4) . . . maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice; 27 (5) achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and 28 (6) enhance the quality of renewable resources . . . . 29 (c) The Congress recognizes that each person should enjoy a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. 30 42 U.S.C. § 4331 (emphasis supplied). 31 The emphasis placed by Congress on the continuing obligation of Federal Government agencies to carry out the above policy and accomplish the environmental conditions prescribed in 42 U.S.C. § 4331(b), as quoted above, is further implemented by Executive Order No. 11,752, portions of which are quoted in the Appendix to this opinion, and by the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C) that (1) the policies, regulations and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the foregoing policies, and (2) all federal agencies shall include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement . . . on the environmental impact of the proposal stating adverse effects which cannot be avoided, alternatives to the proposal, any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, etc. 8 32 It is clear that projects in the design or pre-construction stage are subject to NEPA. See Arlington Coalition on Transportation v. Volpe, 458 F.2d 1323 (4th Cir. 1972). In Shiffler v. Schlesinger, 548 F.2d 96, 104 (3d Cir. 1977), this court, in an opinion by Chief Judge Seitz, stated that only when an irreversible commitment of resources has already produced most of the environmental harm anticipated by an EIS does the reduced NEPA benefit allow the court to balance the marginal environmental protection that would result against completion of the project. 9 33 In view of the above statutory and regulatory (see Appendix) language, the federal courts have emphasized the dangers of making an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (see 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(v) quoted above) by undertaking construction without full consideration of the NEPA policies set forth above. See e. g., National Resources Defense Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 539 F.2d 824, 845 (2d Cir. 1976), and cases there cited; Stop H-3 Association v. Volpe, 353 F.Supp. 14, 15-16 (D.Haw.1972). 34 In Calvert Cliffs' Coord. Com. v. United States A. E. Com'n, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 33, 37-38, 449 F.2d 1109, 1113-14 (1971), the court said: 35 In general, all agencies must use a 'systematic, interdisciplinary approach' to environmental planning and evaluation 'in decisionmaking which may have an impact on man's environment.' In order to include all possible environmental factors in the decisional equation, agencies must 'identify and develop methods and procedures    which will ensure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and technical considerations.' 'Environmental amenities' will often be in conflict with 'economic and technical considerations.' To 'consider' the former 'along with' the latter must involve a balancing process. In some instances environmental costs may outweigh economic and technical benefits and in other instances they may not. But NEPA mandates a rather finely tuned and 'systematic' balancing analysis in each instance. 36 To ensure that the balancing analysis is carried out and given full effect, Section 102(2)(C) requires that responsible officials of all agencies prepare a 'detailed statement' covering the impact of particular actions on the environment, the environmental costs which might be avoided, and alternative measures which might alter the cost-benefit equation. The apparent purpose of the 'detailed statement' is to aid in the agencies' own decision making process and to advise other interested agencies and the public of the environmental consequences of planned federal action. Beyond the 'detailed statement,' Section 102(2)(D) requires all agencies specifically to 'study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.' This requirement, like the 'detailed statement' requirement, seeks to ensure that each agency decision maker has before him and takes into proper account all possible approaches to a particular project (including total abandonment of the project) which would alter the environmental impact and the cost-benefit balance. . . . 37 . . . Indeed, the requirement of environmental consideration 'to the fullest extent possible' sets a high standard for the agencies, a standard which must be rigorously enforced by the reviewing courts. (Footnotes omitted.) 38 In view of the foregoing statutory terms and judicial decisions, it is clear that there was no abuse of discretion 10 by the district court in granting several additional months to the EPA to reconsider its approval of this project and to prepare an EIS, since it had a rational basis for determining that the government official defendants were justified in requesting more time to reevaluate their positions. 11 The district court had the duty to consider the fact that there had been no irretrievable commitment of resources when it acted in this case. 39 The Authority states in its reply brief, at page 13: 40 In the present case, to the contrary, the Authority is not seeking any payments at all as a result of its cross-claims. Rather it seeks only to enforce the nondiscretionary and statutory duty imposed upon EPA to comply with NEPA and the FWPCA. 41 However, NEPA requires that the EPA defendants continue to consider the project until there has been an irretrievable commitment of resources. The record 12 does not establish a duty on such defendants to give final approval to the Interceptor-Collector System prior to an evidentiary hearing on the request for an injunction, particularly where the Authority will have a remedy at law in the Court of Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1491 for any damages it is able to prove it has sustained. Also, no precedent has been cited by the Authority to support the position that the EPA defendants must represent its position in this law suit in which it has intervened. 13 42