Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Warm Springs Dam Task Force v. Gribble

Citation: 8 ELR 20065
No. No. 77-2301, 565 F.2d 549/11 ERC 1155/(9th Cir., 11/23/1977) Motion for injunction pending appeal denied

The Ninth Circuit denies plaintiffs' motion for an injunction against further work on a proposed dam pending appeal of a lower court's ruling that the Corps of Engineers' revised environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project complies with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Appellants have not shown that they will suffer significant harm while an expedited appeal proceeds, and the public interest can best be served by expediting the briefing and hearing schedule on appeal and denying the request for interim injunctive relief. Moreover, appellants have likewise failed to demonstrate a likelihood that they will succeed on the merits. A recent Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) letter expressing dissatisfaction with the seismic studies that have been done in conjunction with the project is quite different from the 1974 CEQ letter that explicitly labeled the original EIS inadequate and recommended injunctive relief. The court of appeals emphasizes that its role is limited to determining whether the lower court's decision was clearly erroneous, and the court points out that no irrevocable commitments to completion of the project can practically be made before the expedited appeal is resolved.

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
Robert L. Henn
Ferguson, Hoffman, Henn & Mandel
1365 Columbus Ave., San Francisco CA 94133
(415) 673-8300

Leslie R. Perry
Luke, Libicki & Perry
847 Fifth St., Santa Rosa CA 95404
(707) 544-6942

Counsel for Defendants-Appellees
Rodney H. Hamlin, Ass't U.S. Attorney
450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco CA 94102
(415) 556-1126

Thomas B. Sawyer, Deputy County Counsel
2555 Mendocino Ave., Santa Rosa CA 95401
(707) 527-2421

Before HUFSTEDLER, TRASK, and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges.