Case Law Details
Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council
Project Description:
The Elk Creek Dam project is located on Elk Creek in the Rogue River basin in Oregon. The project consists of three separate dams designed to control runoff and water supply in the basin. The Elk Creek dam is the last of the three dams to be built. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) completed an EIS for the project in 1971. The EIS, however, acknowledged that further studies should be conducted to analyze turbidity likely to be caused by the dam. The further studies were conducted and a supplemental EIS was issued in December, 1980. The Corps issued a record of decision, and construction of the dam commenced.
490 U.S. 360
490 U.S. 360
U.S. Supreme Court
05/01/1989
Elk Creek Dam
Other
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court in 1985, seeking to enjoin further construction of the dam. Plaintiffs’ primary claim was that the Corps should prepare an additional supplemental EIS to address information developed after the 1980 document. The new information consisted of an internal memorandum prepared by the state wildlife agency and a soil survey prepared by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. The district court rejected the claim, finding that the Corps acted reasonably in relying on its own experts in determining that the new information was not significant. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the Corps had “failed to evaluate the new information with sufficient care.” The Supreme Court granted the government’s request for review and reversed the court of appeals.
Key Holdings
NEPA
Supplemental EIS. The Supreme Court held that an agency’s decision not to prepare a supplement EIS should only be set aside if the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court stated that an agency “must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts even if, as an original matter, a court might find contrary views more persuasive.” The court noted that it would not “automatically defer” to an agency’s determination on the need for a supplemental EIS, but would carefully review the record to ensure that “the agency has made a reasoned decision based on its evaluation of the significance – or lack of significance – of the new information.”
File Attachment
Download the decision