7393 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Though these state requirements imposed an administrative burden on the MBPP and may have contributed to the delay in starting construction, they were not nearly as important as the federal interventions, which brought the project under the jurisdiction of NEPA and, eventually, the Endangered Species Act. As noted, two federal actions were invo1ed: the loan guarantee from REA and the "404" Permit requirement. The latter refers to Section 404 of the 1972 Water Pollution Control Amendments, which requires anyone seeking to dispose of dredge or fill material in a navigable water body to obtain a permit from the Corps of Engineers.* REA was designated the lead agency in the preparation of the EIS, which was completed in the late 1976. At about this time, the state of Nebraska began express~ng its concerns about the effects of the project on the Platte in Nebraska, and during 1976 and 1977 there was extended negotiation among the parties in an attempt to address Nebraska's concern. These negotiations proved fruitless, however, and ~n November 1976 the state brought an action in the US District Court for the state of Nebraska against the REA to prevent the issuance of a loan guarantee. This suit challenged the adequacy of the final EIS and claimed a failure to comply with certain sections of the Endangered Species Act. In 1977, Nebraska was joined in this suit by several national environmental groups, principally the National Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Powder River Basin Resource Council in Wyoming. The plaintiffs alleged a large number of defects in the EIS. The most Unportant of these were first, a failure to give adequate consideration to the downstream environmental impacts of additional water depletions on the Laramie, including the effects on the self-sustaining trout fishery in Lake McConaughy, the effect on wetlands habitat on the Platte, and the effects on agriculture in Nebraska. Second, it was alleged that inadequate consideration was given to water conservation alternatives, including dry or wet/dry cooling, in plant design. Finally, the EIS was faulted for its failure to consider the projected water consumption in light of its cumulative impacts with other future depletions. *Originally, MBPP thought Grayrocks Dam was exempt from this because the Laramie is not a navigable stream. However, the court NRDC v. Callaway (392 F. Supp. 685, 1975) brought streams such as under the jurisdiction of Section 404. requirement decision in the Laramie 29