Sierra Club v. Froehlke

359 F. Supp. 1289, 5 ERC 1033, 3 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20248, 5 ERC (BNA) 1033, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14888
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Texas
DecidedFebruary 16, 1973
DocketCiv. A. 71-H-983
StatusPublished
Cited by55 cases

This text of 359 F. Supp. 1289 (Sierra Club v. Froehlke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sierra Club v. Froehlke, 359 F. Supp. 1289, 5 ERC 1033, 3 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20248, 5 ERC (BNA) 1033, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14888 (S.D. Tex. 1973).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CARL O. BUE, Jr., District Judge.

A.

1.

INTRODUCTION

The complexity of this case and the substantial record 1 submitted for review *1299 have caused this Court great concern. The geographical magnitude of the projects and the financial investment involved are very substantial. The Court has closely studied the entire record, paying particular attention to the various studies and congressional hearings. These include three studies pertaining to what this Court shall identify as the Trinity Project, described in detail hereafter, which were published in 1941, 2 1965, 3 and most recently in 1968. 4 Sev *1300 eral relate specifically to what this Court will identify as the Wallisville Project, including one published in 1961, 5 the general design memorandum 6 *1302 and recreational study 7 published in 1965, and a supplement published in 1969. 8 of central importance will be the environmental impact statement for the Wallisville Project, dated December, 1971. 9 The congressional hearings to which this Court has paid closest attention include those relating to appropriations for public works projects for the fiscal years 1966, 10 1967, 11 1968, 12 1969, 13 1970, 14 1971, 15 1972, 16 and 1978, 17

*1306 2.

THE PARTIES AND ISSUES

Description of Parties

This case is brought as a class action by five organizations and two individuals on behalf of themselves and a class who have enjoyed or otherwise derived benefit from the Trinity River, Trinity Bay, and surrounding areas in their natural state and who wish to preserve and enhance such areas in their natural state and beauty. Four of the organizations include the Sierra Club, the Houston Audubon Society, the Houston Sportsmens Club and the Environmental Protection Fund. In general, each alleges a membership in Texas who use and enjoy the waters of the Trinity River, Trinity Bay, and surrounding areas. Collectively, they exist for purposes of promoting conservation and proper management of land, water and wildlife resources. The fifth organization, the Texas Shrimp Association, is composed of members primarily engaged in commercial shrimping in areas of the Trinity River, Trinity Bay, and related localities. The organization exists for the purpose, among others, of preserving the shrimp nursery grounds in their natural state. The two named individuals, Charles L. Peting and Eugene A. Dutton, live in or near the affected areas where they have hunted, trapped, fished and shrimped in the Trinity River and Trinity Bay areas, and they wish to preserve these areas in their natural state. The complaint, taken as a whole, alleges that the failure of the defendants to abide by the applicable law has caused irreparable harm and damage to plaintiffs who have no adequate remedy at law.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Robert F. Froehlke, Secretary of the Army, Lt. Gen. Frederick J. Clark, Chief of Engineers of the Army Corps of Engineers, and Col. Nolañ C. Rhodes, District Engineer of the Army Corps of Engineers. All defendants, collectively referred to as the Corps by this Court, are sued in their official capacities. For purposes of this decision, the Court requested, and the Corps supplied, a simplified chain-of-eommand for the Corps of Engineers. This is included in the footnotes. 18 Another party appear *1308 ing as a defendant, by intervention, is the Trinity River Authority of Texas (hereinafter referred to as the TRA). The TRA is a governmental agency of the State of Texas which was created as a conservation and reclamation district pursuant to statute. 19 The duty of the TRA is to prepare a master plan for the maximum development of the soil and water resources of the entire Trinity River watershed, including plans for the complete utilization, for all economically beneficial purposes, of the water resources of the watershed. The TRA is empowered to engage in water supply, flood control, pollution control, sewerage transportation and treatment, navigation, soil conservation and other related activities. Both the Wallisville and Trinity River Navigation Projects are located within the territory over which the TRA has authority. The record indicates that the TRA has been active in promoting and coordinating planning and construction activities related to both of these projects as well as several others. The City of Houston, Texas, defendant by intervention, is a municipal corporation concerned with the conveyance, transportation and distribution of water for and on behalf of the City. Much of its water sources presently come from the Trinity River, and it has contracted with the federal government to store and impound water in the reservoir being created by the Wallisville Project. The Coastal Industrial Water Authority of Texas, which intervened jointly with the City of Houston, is a governmental agency of the State of Texas created as a conservation and reclamation district and authorized to sell, transport and deliver water to customers. Additional defendants are the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas, both of which are being allowed to intervene as defendants by this opinion, 20 as they have substantial interests in flood control and navigational aspects of the Trinity Projects.

b.

Description of Projects

The controversy in this case focuses upon a comprehensive development program of the Trinity River Basin which includes provisions for navigation, flood control, water conservation and recreation. 21 This is being accomplished in part by the State of Texas and in part by the Corps of Engineers, both working together. Part of this development program is the Trinity Project which provides for a multiple purpose channel 12 x 200 feet in dimensions extending about 363 miles from the Houston Ship Channel in Galveston Bay, near the Gulf of Mexico, to Fort Worth, Texas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mangini v. J.G. Durand International
31 Cal. App. 4th 214 (California Court of Appeal, 1994)
Oregon Environmental Council v. Kunzman
817 F.2d 484 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)
Oregon Environmental Council v. Leonard Kunzman
817 F.2d 484 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)
Sierra Club v. Froehlke
816 F.2d 205 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)
Sierra Club v. United States Department of Transportation
664 F. Supp. 1324 (N.D. California, 1987)
Sierra Club v. Froehlke
630 F. Supp. 1215 (S.D. Texas, 1986)
County of Bergen v. Dole
620 F. Supp. 1009 (D. New Jersey, 1985)
Association Concerned About Tomorrow, Inc. v. Dole
610 F. Supp. 1101 (N.D. Texas, 1985)
Oregon Environmental Council v. Kunzman
614 F. Supp. 657 (D. Oregon, 1985)
Ocoee River Council v. Tennessee Valley Authority
540 F. Supp. 788 (E.D. Tennessee, 1982)
Crosby v. Young
512 F. Supp. 1363 (E.D. Michigan, 1981)
Town of Henrietta v. Department of Environmental Conservation
76 A.D.2d 215 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Aertsen v. Landrieu
488 F. Supp. 314 (D. Massachusetts, 1980)
Main-Amherst Business Ass'n, Inc. v. Adams
461 F. Supp. 1077 (W.D. New York, 1978)
Texas Committee on Natural Resources v. Bergland
433 F. Supp. 1235 (E.D. Texas, 1977)
Sadler v. 218 Housing Corp.
417 F. Supp. 348 (N.D. Georgia, 1976)
Columbia Basin Land Protection Ass'n v. Kleppe
417 F. Supp. 46 (E.D. Washington, 1976)
Louisiana Environmental Society, Inc. v. Brinegar
407 F. Supp. 1309 (W.D. Louisiana, 1976)
Bucks County Board of Commissioners v. Interstate Energy Co.
403 F. Supp. 805 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
359 F. Supp. 1289, 5 ERC 1033, 3 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20248, 5 ERC (BNA) 1033, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sierra-club-v-froehlke-txsd-1973.