Wale
That the statutes are designed to
5
a © 0G
'
hype
YOUR be ‘ Yu
wihoow oases
a i 2 “0
'
‘
atial
ty
2ts are not disputed.
The only
ne admittedly applicable statutes
* oublic policies is concede
The
of their application is crucial. see
1 ay in applying NEPA. .. . the less
@ to protect the city and its people:
one of those comparatively rare cases
..
the plaintiffs receive now whatever
entitled to, there is danger that it
le or no value to them or to anyone
i i
D
Siew ie ue
3
d
lf $e $ (wb
4
HH Ts rs uw ty
a rou) get
Sy ech we aw
ale
bw wD
D
Hp ootte
4y
wip ood
t
38 :
vt
toad wy
o
y
(1a vt a‘
sivikingly similar to the situation here (pages 1116-17)
ly obtained.
H-2 issotiation v. Volve, 349 F.Supp. 1047, 1048
2) this District Court followed the Lathan
.
Volra.
5
2.
sets forth the proper
ry aagtermining whether a oreliminary
ton snould issue ina HEPA action. ..
stringent standard is required to
ave
“*
2 declared policy of Congress,
D
4
AL
a
hy
th
fey
In Brasicrd Tovnsnio v.
-
> 3939 (7th fir.
.
Illinois State Toll Highway Authority,
1972), the Seventh Circuit stated:
. Seiture to comply.
croceaure
463
is casis
.
.
[with the NEPA!
for an ingunction.
.
.
Judicial rslie® ts available to correct
failure on wns cart of
a federal agency
29
Tolley the vorocedural requirement
under NEPA.
at 539.
in Environmental Defense Fund v. TVA, supra, 468 F.2d 1184, the
of Appeals said:
I
ri
=
eni
gois
ivrs
Dons
Tourt
P2an
oP 2
Lee
z
.
a
°
2
5
niminar;
£
2
ak
an
ss
in
un
. Ss
1?
niunotion, as
cinion, is tne
congressional
Sufficient
from the
above, can be
al by appellants
NEPA.
Izaak Walton
ger, 337 F.Sucs.
cf Mew York v.
we
ae
7 aN
ana
ee
Sincthn Tiroutt