context: Though contracts for construction of the outfall tunnel had been entered by that time and construction had begun, the 1993 BA satisfied the spirit, if not the letter, of SS 7(c). To recommend that this Court terminate the outfall tunnel project simply for an alleged violation of procedure, despite no evidence of a likely threat to endangered species, strikes this Court as an exaltation of form over substance. It also appears to be at odds with caselaw.
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.identifier: 437 U.S. 173, 173-74
citation_a.parenthetical: court required to issue injunction to prevent start-up of dam where dam would cause extinction of endangered species and violate letter and purpose of ESA
citation_a.sentence: But see TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. at 173-74, 98 S.Ct. at 2291 (court required to issue injunction to prevent start-up of dam where dam would cause extinction of endangered species and violate letter and purpose of ESA).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 480 U.S. 531, 544
citation_b.parenthetical: criticizing court for giving too much weight to procedural violation of Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and not enough to purpose of statute which had not been violated
citation_b.sentence: See Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 314-15, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 1804, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982) (court not required to issue injunction to stop technical violations of Federal Water Pollution Control Act where discharge of military ordnance not polluting waters and, therefore, not in tension with purpose of statute). Cf Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 544, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 1403, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987) (criticizing court for giving too much weight to procedural violation of Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and not enough to purpose of statute which had not been violated).