Webster v. United States Department of Agriculture

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that it was proper for the agency to eliminate alternatives from detailed study for reasons such as technical feasibility, costs and effectiveness in achieving the purposes of the action complied with NEPA
• “[Although agencies must take into account effects that are reasonably foreseeable, they generally need not do so with effects that are merely speculative.”
• “[T]he purpose of the proposed action sets the contours for its exploration of available alternatives.”
• “[A]n EIS should provide enough detail concerning the drawbacks and merits of the proposed action to allow for reasoned evaluation and decisionmaking.”
• under NEPA an agency is not required to analyze environmental consequences or alternatives it has rejected in good faith as too remote, speculative, impractical or ineffective

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).