Source: http://openjurist.org/648/f2d/246/citizens-for-better-st-clair-county-v-james
Timestamp: 2017-02-27 00:11:59
Document Index: 467815714

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 22', '§ 1251', '§ 1342', '§ 1342', '§ 4332', '§ 4332']

648 F2d 246 Citizens for Better St Clair County v. James | OpenJurist
648 F. 2d 246 - Citizens for Better St Clair County v. James HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 648 F.2d.
648 F2d 246 Citizens for Better St Clair County v. James 648 F.2d 246
16 ERC 1911, 11 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,665
CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ST. CLAIR COUNTY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.Fob JAMES, Governor of Alabama et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 80-7223.
Baxley, Stuart, Ward & Dillard, Wm. J. Baxley, William K. Davenport, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants.
J. R. Brooks, U. S. Atty., Henry I. Frohsin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., Gail Osherenko, Dirk D. Snel, Attys., Sanford Sagalkin, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Justice Dept., Washington, D. C., for federal defendants.
M. Roland Nachman, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., Michael Waters, Birmingham, Ala., for James.
William O. Butler, III, R. Craig Kneisel, Spec. Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for Ala. Water Improvement Commission.
* To better understand this case it is important to consider why Alabama is seeking to locate a prison in St. Clair County. In 1972, a class of prisoners incarcerated in Alabama commenced a lawsuit against the State. The prisoners alleged that their confinement in the antiquated and overcrowded Alabama prison system subjected them to unconstitutionally cruel punishment. The district court for the Middle District of Alabama agreed, Pugh v. Locke, 406 F.Supp. 318 (M.D.Ala.1976), aff'd sub nom. Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 915, 98 S.Ct. 3144 (1978), and ultimately placed the prison system, then operated by an independent board, into receivership under the Governor of Alabama, Newman v. Alabama, 466 F.Supp. 628 (M.D.Ala.1979). The district court, in its order creating the receivership, required the State to take certain measures to alleviate the overcrowded conditions.
The State sought suitable locations for new correctional facilities and decided to construct a prison in St. Clair County. As a preliminary step to the acquisition of the St. Clair County site, the Alabama Department of Corrections asked the Alabama Water Improvement Commission about the conditions under which the proposed prison might discharge treated wastes into Little Canoe Creek. The Commission is the agency charged with controlling water pollution in Alabama. See Alabama Water Pollution Control Act, Ala.Code §§ 22-22-1 et seq. (Supp.1980). The record does not inform us of the Commission's response, if any, to the Department's inquiry.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq. (1976), prohibits discharge of pollutants into navigable waters of the United States unless the discharger has obtained a NPDES permit. Id. at § 1342. Congress had empowered the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue NPDES permits or to "authorize a State, which he determines has the capability of administering a permit program , to issue (such) permits." Id. at § 1342(5). In 1979, the Administrator authorized Alabama, through its Water Improvement Commission, to issue NPDES permits. Although the Alabama Department of Corrections inquired of the Commission about the propriety of discharging wastes into Little Canoe Creek, the Department has not yet applied for an NPDES permit.
The announcement that the State planned to build a prison in St. Clair County evoked vigorous opposition from the local residents. To give a unified voice to their opposition, these residents formed Citizens for a Better St. Clair County. This citizens' group organized a letter-writing campaign to persuade state officials to change their plans, attempted to have the proposed site condemned for use as a park, and eventually sued in state court to enjoin the State's acquisition of the site. When these steps failed, the citizens' group, and several of its members, brought this action for injunctive relief.2
The acquisition of the Site and the construction of the prison facilities will be paid for out of funds of the State of Alabama There will be no federal money used either to obtain the Site or build the facilities. Once completed, the prison will be operated exclusively by Alabama state officers and employees without federal control or responsibility.
No federal monies received by any agency of the State of Alabama can or will be used to finance the purchase of a prison Site or for the construction of any prison facility.
To date, neither the (Alabama) Department of Corrections nor anyone representing them has filed an application for an NPDES permit with the (Alabama Water Improvement Commission) which is in conformance with the premit regulations of the Commission. Consequently, the Commission at present has no official application upon which to act. To date, the only correspondence between the (Commission) and the Departmen of Corrections regarding the proposed prison project has related to a preliminary inquiry by the Department as to the feasibility of discharging treated wastes and the conditions under which treated wastes might be discharged into Little Canoe Creek in St. Clair County.
As recounted in the facts, plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Alabama's planned acquisition of a prison site in St. Clair County constitutes major federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment. If the allegation is true, NEPA requires the responsible federal agency to prepare an environmental impact statement, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C) (1976), and the acquisition may be enjoined until the statement is submitted.
In the case before us, however, Alabama has not received a grant to assist it in acquiring a prison site. Thus, this case is similar to Centralia Prison Opposition Group v. Department of Justice, 12 E.R.C. 1447 (S.D.Ill.1978). There, the court held that state construction of a prison is not federal action despite "significant federal funding in the state prison system as a whole and (the inevitability) that federal funds will be involved in the operation of certain projects at the prison site." Id. at 1448. We agree with this holding. Given the extent of federal assistance to the states today, the contrary holding that substantial federal grants to a state can convert state projects receiving no direct grants into federal actions could federalize almost every state action. We are directed to nothing in NEPA or its legislative history that supports appellants' novel view and its far-reaching consequences.
Appellants argue that the district court orders in Pugh and Newman, requiring Alabama's new prisons to conform to constitutionally-based standards, are major Federal actions covered by NEPA. The short answer to this argument is that NEPA applies to major actions of the executive department of the federal government, not to the federal judicial branch. See United States v. Kaiser Aetna, 408 F.Supp. 42, 55 n.36 (D.Haw.1976), reversed on other grounds, 584 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1978), reversed, 444 U.S. 164, 100 S.Ct. 383, 62 L.Ed.2d 332 (1979). The district court's remedy in Pugh and Newman did not, therefore, subject Alabama to NEPA.
Appellants contend that the district court should have enjoined the Alabama Water Improvement Commission from entertaining an application for, or issuing, a NPDES permit to the Alabama Department of Corrections for the proposed prison without preparing an environmental impact statement. Appellees counter that the Commission's action in issuing NPDES permits, is not major federal action and that an impact statement is thus not necessary. See generally District of Columbia v. Schramm, 631 F.2d 854, 862 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Chesapeake Bay Foundation v. Virginia State Water Control Board, 453 F.Supp. 122 (E.D.Va.1978).
We need not reach the substantive issue of whether an environmental impact statement must be prepared before a state agency may issue a NPDES permit.3 At the time the district court entered judgment, the Alabama Department of Corrections had not yet applied for a NPDES permit for the proposed prison facility; it had only inquired preliminarily about the feasibility of discharging treated wastes into the Little Canoe Creek. The issue we must decide is whether the Commission's response to this inquiry, which we will assume to be favorable for purposes of this appeal, obligated the Commission to prepare an environmental impact statement. We think it did not.
Neither the Federal Water Pollution Control Act nor, to our knowledge, any federal regulation, dictated the Alabama Water Improvement Commission's response to the Department's inquiry; the federal government had no interest in the Commission's treatment of that inquiry. The Commission's response was not a grant of a permit. Similarly, an unfavorable response would not have been a rejection. Under applicable Alabama regulations, an application for a permit still would have to be made and approved before a NPDES permit could issue. At most, the Commission's favorable response would reflect its preliminary, and tentative, view of the possibility of granting a permit if a formal application was subsequently made. Since the Department of Corrections' inquiry about a NPDES permit was not an application for a permit, and since the EPA had not legitimate interest in the Commission's entertainment of the inquiry, any response thereto plainly was not a federal action. A state action that simply suggests the possibility of future federal action is not tantamount to federal action. See Boston v. Volpe, 464 F.2d 254, 259 (1st Cir. 1972).
The appellants had various requests for the production of documents pending when the district court entered its order granting summary judgment. They contend that it was error for the court to consider the merits of the case before they completed their discovery. While it may be error in some cases for a court to rule on a motion for summary judgment while discovery is still underway, it is not error in every case. A trial judge has great discretion in determining whether to grant discovery requests. Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 576 F.2d 1157, 1218 n.76 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1115, 99 S.Ct. 1020, 59 L.Ed.2d 74 (1979). The question here is whether the documents the defense was called upon to produce would have contained evidence or would have led to the discovery of evidence raising material questions of fact.
Second, appellants believe their discovery might have shown that Alabama was receiving federal support for the acquisition of the proposed prison site in St. Clair County. We have already held that indirect federal support is insufficient to federalize the acquisition; Britton's affidavit established that Alabama would not receive direct federal funding for the prison acquisition. Thus, appellants, to create a fact issue, must show that Britton's affidavit was incorrect or incomplete. Appellants did not argue to the district court that Britton's statement was incorrect; nor did they suggest that the documents to be produced would impeach his statement. Consequently, the district court was within its discretion in acting on the merits of the case before discovery was completed.
NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement on "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment " 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C) (1976)
Named as defendants in the suit were the Governor of Alabama; the Alabama Department of Corrections and its Director, Robert E. Britton; the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration; the Alabama Water Improvement Commission and its Director, James Warr; and the Environmental Protection Agency and its Administrator, Douglas I. Costle
The only court to determine this issue held that an environmental impact statement did not have to be prepared before a state agency may issue an NPDES permit. Chesapeake Bay Foundation v. Virginia State Water Control Board, 453 F.Supp. at 125-127; see also District of Columbia v. Schramm, 631 F.2d at 1862 (EPA's decision not to veto a state's issuance of a NPDES permit does not require preparation of an environmental impact statement). But see Mahelona v. Hawaii Electric Power Co., 418 F.Supp. 1328, 1332-34, n.6 (D.Hawaii 1976)