Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Webster v. United States Departement of Agriculture .

Pays/Territoire
États-Unis d'Amérique
Type de cour
Autres
Date
Jul 13, 2012
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
United States Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit
Juge
Wilkinson, Gregory and Floyd.
Numéro de référence
No. 11-1739
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Eau, Terre et sols, Environnement gén.
Mot clé
Planification territoriale
Résumé
Over thirty-five years ago, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), working with local sponsors, devised a project to provide watershed protection, flood prevention, and recreation along the Lost River Subwatershed. The proposed project involved a combination of land-treatment measures and five dams and impoundments. In 1974, the NRCS issued an environmental impact statement relating to the project, and since that time, three dams and most of the land-treatment measures have been completed. After preparing a supplemental environmental impact statement in 2009, the NRCS issued a record of decision that eliminated one of the remaining dams from the project and authorized construction of the final dam for the added purpose of providing water supply. Appellants, seven individuals who allege that their land will be adversely affected by this final dam's construction, filed this action contending that the NRCS has failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Appellants appeal the district court's order granting Appellees' motion for summary judgment. The Appeals Court ruled, "NRCS has complied with the procedures mandated by the NEPA and taken a hard look at the project's environmental effects, we affirm" and "Appellants fail to show, or even suggest, any harm that resulted from the failure to designate the Army Corps as a cooperating agency. Nor do we identify any harm resulting from this failure. In fact, the record reflects that the NRCS provided the Army Corps opportunities to participate in preparing both the 2007 SEIS and the 2009 SEIS, and that the Army Corps took advantage of at least some of these opportunities". On another issue, "Appellants argue that the NRCS should not have issued the 2009 SEIS prior to receiving the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the Army Corps. But we are aware of no requirement that the NRCS obtain necessary permits before issuing an EIS. To the contrary, the CEQ's regulations mandate only that it list all necessary federal permits in a draft EIS. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.25(b). Thus, the NRCS's issuance of the 2009 SEIS before obtaining the requisite permit from the Army Corps does not violate the NEPA."
Texte intégral
COU-159581.pdf