This book provides practicing engineers with water-based environment engineering from theory to practice by presenting the principles of water treatment, wastewater treatment, water reuse, water quality, and overviews of regulations regarding pollution control and drinking water quality. The Eighth Edition features new and updated coverage of GIS, climate change, alternative water supply development, hydraulics, stormwater treatment techniques, water quality regulations, filter design, and more. Recognizing that all waters are potential sources of supply, the authors present treatment processes in the context of what they can do, rather than dividing them along clean water or waste water lines. For practicing engineers who need a good reference book and for those preparing to take the examination for licensing as a professional engineer.
The Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District (GBMSD) wastewater treatment plant recently began accepting effluent wastewater from FRF to its DePere, WI, facility. In order to control the introduction of pollutants into the sewerage system and, ultimately, its facility, GBMSD has implemented an industrial pretreatment program to regulate certain industries called Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). SIUs must comply with federal, state, and local requirements through a permit system that includes self monitoring and compliance. GBMSD also inspects SIUs annually to review operations and promote pollution prevention. FRF because of its high effluent COD levels has been designated as an SIU.
Named as defendants in the complaint are Robert F. Froehlke, Secretary of the Army, Lt. Gen. Frederick J. Clark, Chief of Engineers of the Army Corps of Engineers, and Col. Nolan C. Rhodes, District Engineer of the Army Corps of Engineers. All defendants, collectively referred to as the Corps by this Court, are sued in their official capacities. For purposes of this decision, the Court requested, and the Corps supplied, a simplified chain-of-command for the Corps of Engineers. This is included in the footnotes. Another party appearing *1307 *1308 as a defendant, by intervention, is the Trinity River Authority of Texas (hereinafter referred to as the TRA). The TRA is a governmental agency of the State of Texas which was created as a conservation and reclamation district pursuant to statute. The duty of the TRA is to prepare a master plan for the maximum development of the soil and water resources of the entire Trinity River watershed, including plans for the complete utilization, for all economically beneficial purposes, of the water resources of the watershed. The TRA is empowered to engage in water supply, flood control, pollution control, sewerage transportation and treatment, navigation, soil conservation and other related activities. Both the Wallisville and Trinity River Navigation Projects are located within the territory over which the TRA has authority. The record indicates that the TRA has been active in promoting and coordinating planning and construction activities related to both of these projects as well as several others. The City of Houston, Texas, defendant by intervention, is a municipal corporation concerned with the conveyance, transportation and distribution of water for and on behalf of the City. Much of its water sources presently come from the Trinity River, and it has contracted with the federal government to store and impound water in the reservoir being created by the Wallisville Project. The Coastal Industrial Water Authority of Texas, which intervened jointly with the City of Houston, is a governmental agency of the State of Texas created as a conservation and reclamation district and authorized to sell, transport and deliver water to customers. Additional defendants are the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas, both of which are being allowed to intervene as defendants by this opinion, as they have substantial interests in flood control and navigational aspects of the Trinity Projects.
The controversy in this case focuses upon a comprehensive development program of the Trinity River Basin which includes provisions for navigation, flood control, water conservation and recreation. This is being accomplished in part by the State of Texas and in part by the Corps of Engineers, both working together. Part of this development program is the Trinity Project which provides for a multiple purpose channel 12 ื 200 feet in dimensions extending about 363 miles from the Houston Ship Channel in Galveston Bay, near the Gulf of Mexico, to Fort Worth, Texas. The channel serves both navigation and flood control purposes and will consist of sixteen navigation dams and twenty navigation locks to overcome a total lift of 496 feet. The channel will follow an existing navigation channel to Liberty, Texas, and pass through the pools of Wallisville, Livingston and Tennessee Colony reservoirs. The existing Dallas floodway will be enlarged, and part of the Trinity River and tributary channels in the vicinity of Dallas will be realigned for flood control. This project also entails other flood control features, construction of about 98 miles of 84 inch pipeline from Tennessee Colony Lake to Benbrook Lake, and alterations to existing bridges and utilities to provide navigation clearances. Future plans include a widening of the channel to 250 feet and the adding of duplicate locks with pumping facilities to recirculate water. Provisions are also made for water quality control, recreation and redevelopment. The latest projected appropriation *1309 estimate for the total Trinity project to completion is $1,356,000,000. The magnitude of this project may be seen by considering that the total civil works budget for the Corps of Engineers in the entire country for fiscal year 1973 is $1,844,591,000. According to the record, with the exception of Wallisville, no construction work has begun on any of the specified components of the Trinity Project, although engineering and environmental studies and evaluations are underway.
In 1941 the Army Corps of Engineers published the first major study of the Trinity River Basin, analyzing the needs for flood control, navigation, water conservation, and allied purposes. This plan, similar to the 1902 concept, contemplated a 9 foot deep by 150 foot wide channel, 26 locks, sufficient dams and reservoirs to store the water necessary for navigation, plus modification of 43 bridges and 22 pipelines to permit navigation. By straightening the river channel through cutoffs, the route would be reduced approximately 110 miles. Because the navigation aspects were found to be economically unjustified, the Corps recommended approval of the plan as a whole, postponing construction beyond Liberty until additional justification arose.
The studies of the saltwater intrusion problem revealed that much of it was directly attributable to navigation efforts. It had been greatly increased, for example, when a navigation channel to Houston, Texas, removed the natural barriers restricting the inward flow of seawater. It was so identified by local residents *1314 who registered many complaints. The Corps reported to Congress that the Anahuac Channel, a navigation channel located in Trinity Bay, \"was not extended into the Trinity River because of saltwater intrusion problems.\" In various letters to Texas Congressmen, the Corps described the \"origin\" of the Wallisville Project as stemming from the need for salinity control necessitated by the navigation project associated with the Trinity Project. The Environmental Protection Agency, to which an early draft of the Wallisville impact statement was submitted, reported in 1971:
*1315 Following completion of the studies, the Corps recommended to Congress in 1961 that a saltwater barrier reservoir be constructed near the mouth of the Trinity River. It was anticipated that the findings of the studies would be incorporated in the pending comprehensive review of reports being undertaken on the Trinity River and tributaries, and that the project would also serve a function in an integrated water supply plan. Congress approved the Corps' recommendation. A location at river mile 3.9 was selected because of \"site limitations\" and because it was apparently viewed as the most suitable location for meeting the water resource needs of the area.
This Court also has been concerned with the multiple purpose nature of the Wallisville Project. Its five authorized purposes include salinity control, navigation, water conservation, recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement. For the most part, the latter three purposes are substantially \"local\" in nature, particularly that related to water conservation. This purpose was added to the saltwater barrier purpose shortly after the plan for building a barrier was accepted. This purpose developed as the project developed and appears to be one of the more significant features requiring scrutiny by this Court.
In instances in which the multiple purposes of a local nature were determined to be particularly substantial, such a determination would equitably favor a resolution of the case under NEPA on a local basis. In other words, if only one of several project purposes was related to the master project and it was relatively insignificant when compared to the purposes serving local needs, equity would not favor granting an injunction as to the local project pending completion of an environmental impact statement as to the larger, minimally associated project. There is presently a paucity of case law in this area. The only reported case which this Court has found bearing upon multiple purpose issues is Committee to Stop Route 7 v. Volpe, 346 F. Supp. 731, 734 (D.Conn. 1972). In that case it was determined that if a highway segment which had a utility of its own was constructed, it would narrow the range of locality alternatives of the major route. Accordingly, its construction was enjoined. Id. at 740. That particular problem is not present here because all navigation, existing and proposed, will use the waters of the Trinity River, if at all. Keeping in mind the basic purpose of NEPA to avoid piecemeal environmental evaluations, a practical test to determine at what point a multiple purpose project becomes sufficiently associated with a major project so as to be controlled by it basically turns on the nature and extent of the nexus between the two projects. If in any given relationship the nexus between a major project and a smaller, multiple purpose project is exceedingly thin and attenuated, it would appear to *1325 be unreasonable and impracticable to enjoin what is substantially a local project. Similarly, if the major project is not yet sufficiently distinct or comprehensive, the nexus might be insufficient as well. 153554b96e