Legal Opinion
Upper Snake River Chapter of Trout Unlimited v. Hodel
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 17, 1990No. 89-35142PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KOELSCH, Circuit Judge:
The dispositive question on the appeal is this: Did the District Court err in concluding that the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) did not require the Bureau of Reclamation (“Bureau”) to prepare environmental impact statements (“EIS”) before periodically adjusting the flow of water from the Palisades Dam?
We are clear that the answer is “No.”
Several Idaho Sportsmen organizations and an individual plaintiff commenced this suit against the Secretary of the Interi- or and the Chief of the Bureau to secure injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment relating to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. Winston Bryant McConneyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Andrus v. Sierra ClubSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- City of Davis, a Municipal Corporation v. William T. Coleman, Jr., Secretary of TransportationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Save Our Ten Acres v. Rod Kreger, Acting Administrator, General Services AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1973
- United States v. OregonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Westlands Water Dist. v. US Dept. of InteriorDistrict Court, E.D. California · 1994
- Grand Canyon Trust v. United States Bureau of ReclamationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- United States of America, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Movant-Appellant v. City of DetroitCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
- Public Service Co. of Colorado v. AndrusDistrict Court, D. Idaho · 1993
- Upper Snake River Chapter Of Trout Unlimited v. HodelCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.