290 



right." The reason was that the United States had 

 plans to condemn petitioners' land for use as a means 

 of access to a proposed parkway. Allowing a wharf 

 to be built would increase the expense to the govern- 

 mient since it would increase the market value of the 

 land and would require the government to pay for 

 tearing dov/n the wharf. The importance of Greathouse 

 is that it recognized that the Corps of Engineers does 

 not have to wear navigational blinders when it con- 

 siders a permit request. That there must be a reason 

 does not mean that the reason has to be navigability. 



Another case holds that the Corps has a duty to 

 consider factors other than navigational. Citizens Com- 

 mittee for the Hudson Valley v. Volpe, S.D.N.Y., 1969, 



302 F.Supp. 1083, aff'd, 2 Cir., 1970 F.2d 



[No. 428-33, April 16, 1970]. There the District Court 

 held that the Corps must consider a fill project in 

 the context of the entire expressway project of which 

 it was a part rather than just considering the fill and 

 its effect on navigation. The reasoning was that the 

 approval of the Secretary of Transportation was neces- 

 sary before a proposed causeway could be constructed. 

 The causeway, along with the fill, was an integral 

 part of the expressway project. However, if the Corps 

 and Secretary of the Army approved the fill and the 

 State -completed it, the Secretary of Transportation, 

 considering the enormous expense of the fill, would 

 have no choice, other than approving the causeway. 

 The Army thus had exceeded its authority in approv- 

 ing the fill on only navigational consdderations since 



