Sierra Club v. United States Department of Agriculture et al

RESPONSE re Notice

D.D.C.August 12, 2008

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _______________________________________ ) SIERRA CLUB, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 07-1860 (EGS) ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE AGRICULTURE, RURAL UTILITIES ) TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF SERVICE; et al., ) AUTHORITIES ON REMEDY ISSUE ) Federal Defendants, ) ) and ) ) SUNFLOWER ELECTRIC POWER ) CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant-Intervenor. ) ) On August 1, 2008, the Sierra Club filed a Notice of Authorities on Remedy Issue (Doc. # 28) in response to the Court’s question regarding the Court’s authority to set aside approvals issued by the Rural Utilities Service (“RUS”), and to enjoin further action by RUS of the Holcomb Expansion Project. The Sierra Club cites Realty Income Trust v. Eckerd for the proposition that there is a presumption that injunctive relief should be granted when there is a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). 564 F.2d 447, 456 (D.C. Cir. 1977). However, there is no absolute principle that injunctive relief automatically follows a NEPA violation. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982); Izaak Walton League of Am. v. Marsh, 655 F.2d 346, 364 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Rather, the Supreme Court has held that the “basis of injunctive relief . . . has Case 1:07-cv-01860-EGS Document 30 Filed 08/12/2008 Page 1 of 4 2 always been irreparable injury and the inadequacy of legal remedies.” Weinberger, 456 U.S. at 312. This principle applies equally to cases alleging potential environmental harm. Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 544 (1987); Aberdeen & Rockfish R.R. Co. v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures, 409 U.S. 1207, 1217-18 (1972) (stating that courts should not “exercise equitable powers loosely or casually whenever a claim of ‘environmental damage’ is asserted”). An agency is entitled to a presumption of regularity when following their own regulations. Friends of the Earth v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 446 F.3d 140, 147 (D.C. Cir. 2006). As briefed in Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 12), the Court’s ability to review, and thus to set aside, RUS’s approvals is precluded under the Rural Electrification Act, and the Sierra Club’s NEPA challenge would effectively circumvent this limitation on judicial review. Defs. Mtn. at 19-20. Dated: August 12, 2008 Respectfully submitted, RONALD J. TENPAS Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division /s/ Julie S. Thrower JULIE S. THROWER Trial Attorney Natural Resources Section Environment and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 663 Washington, D.C. 20044-0663 Telephone: 202-305-0247 Facsimile: 202-305-0506 Email: julie.thrower@usdoj.gov; Case 1:07-cv-01860-EGS Document 30 Filed 08/12/2008 Page 2 of 4 3 Of counsel: TERENCE M. BRADY Assistant General Counsel HELEN HARRIS Attorney Rural Utilities Division Office of General Counsel United States Department of Agriculture Attorneys for Defendants Case 1:07-cv-01860-EGS Document 30 Filed 08/12/2008 Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 12 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF AUTHORITIES ON REMEDY ISSUE with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following e- mail addresses: Matthew A. Axtell maxtell@velaw.com David S. Baron dbaron@earthjustice.org, zmaxfield@earthjustice.org, fsantana@earthjustice.org Sharon M. Mattox smattox@velaw.com, lhernandez@velaw.com Nicholas F. Persampieri npersampieri@earthjustice.org I also certify that the document will be served upon the following non-CM/ECF participants: None required. /s/ Julie S. Thrower JULIE S. THROWER Trial Attorney Natural Resources Section Environment and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 663 Washington, D.C. 20044-0663 Telephone: 202-305-0247 Facsimile: 202-305-0506 Email: julie.thrower@usdoj.gov Attorney for Defendants Case 1:07-cv-01860-EGS Document 30 Filed 08/12/2008 Page 4 of 4