WSP10173 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. Ut~-~l-~UUI rKI U6:UU PM NUKUHflU~ ~flNIA rt rHh NU, ~U~~O~lO~1 r. U"tl UU NOJiDHAIrS HALTOM TAYLOll TARAD4SH So BLA.DH, LLP ATTORNEYS AT L.A.w Jicarilla Apache Nation's Comments on Navajo Reservoir Operations PDEIS December 21, 2001 Page 3 Thus, it is a fundamental requirement ofNEPA that an ErS must disclose and analyze the impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives. Obviously, if an ErS does not actually analyze the Proposed Action or a substantial component of the action, it fllils to meet this purpose and is inadequate under NEP A. Here, the PDEIS omits from its analysis the "allowing for future water development" and "maintaining the authorized purposes of the Navajo Unit" portions of the Proposed Action. Instead. the PDEIS assumes that future water development will not occur. This serious disconnection between the Proposed Action and Purpose and Need Statements on the one hand and the alternatives analysis on the other must be corrected to ensure that the ErS complies with NEPA. "The NEP A implementing regulations also require that agencies adopt policies and procedures to ensure that decisions are made in accordance with the policies and purposes of the Act. Id. ~ 1505.1. In particular. such procedures "shall include. . . [r]equiring that the: alternatives considered by the decisionmaker are encompassed by the range of alternatives discussed in the relevant environmental documents and that the decisionmaker consider the alternatives described in the environmcntal impact statement." lQ. 9 1505.1 (d). Here, Reclamation is proposing to allow future waler development and maintain the authorized purposes of the Navajo Unit, but has not analyzed these ib-pects of the Proposed Action and alternatives in the PDEIS. Flliling to analyze these essential components of the action in the EIS will result in violation of 9 1505.l(d) because Reclamation will be deciding among alternatives not described or discussed in the ElS. Thest: neglected components of the Proposed Action are particularly important to analyze: in the ElS because they also comprises Congress' authorizations and directives to Reclamation for the operation of the Navajo Unit. In the public Record of Decision or ROD required'by the NEPA implementing regulations: An agency may discuss preferences among alternatives based on relevant fllctors including economic and technical factors and Ill!ellCV statutorY mis~ion~. An al!ency shall identi fv and discuss all such Jactors including any essential considerations of national policy which were balanced bv the al!t:ncv in makinl! its deci~ion and state how those considerations entered into its decision. rd. ~ 150S,2(b) (empohasis added). A reviewing court will look for evidence that the agency considered these relevant factors: agencies must look hard at the factors relevant to the definition of purpose. : . . Perhaos most imoortantlv. an al!encv should al W'"dV~ consider the views of ConllCcss. 00881