Source: https://m.openjurist.org/611/f2d/233
Timestamp: 2020-02-26 11:18:30
Document Index: 687090443

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4321', '§ 4332', '§ 1331', '§ 1361', '§ 4332', '§ 4341', '§ 4332', '§ 1500', '§ 1500', '§ 109', '§ 625', '§ 706', '§ 18', '§ 4332', '§ 103']

611 F2d 233 Farmland Preservation Association v. Goldschmidt | OpenJurist
611 F. 2d 233 - Farmland Preservation Association v. Goldschmidt
611 F2d 233 Farmland Preservation Association v. Goldschmidt
611 F.2d 233
14 ERC 1791, 10 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,052
FARMLAND PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION; Community Action Research
Group of Iowa, Inc., Norman Clare Sloan, Appellants,
Neil GOLDSCHMIDT, Secretary, United States Department of
Transportation, et al., Appellees,
Waterloo Chamber of Commerce et al. (Intervenors), Appellees.
The action was commenced by or on behalf of a number of Iowa farmers for the purpose of opposing the proposed construction of federal Interstate Highway 380 (I-380) along a 47.6 miles segment running in a southeast to northwest direction between the Cities of Cedar Rapids and Waterloo. Plaintiffs claim that the final environmental impact statement (EIS) that was prepared in connection with the project as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 Et seq., was inadequate in that it allegedly did not properly discuss certain alternatives to the proposed construction, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(iii). Plaintiffs claim that they will be damaged irreparably by the proposed construction, and they seek declaratory and injunctive relief; they also seek relief in the nature of mandamus. Additionally, plaintiffs seek an award of costs and attorneys' fee. Federal subject matter jurisdiction was properly based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and § 1361.
After the case came to issue, the parties entered into a very full and helpful stipulation covering many of the material facts of the case; other facts were developed otherwise by documentary evidence. In due course both sides moved for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) and (b). A voluminous record, including thorough memorandum briefs, was assembled and submitted to the district court.
42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) requires that there must be included in every federal recommendation for major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment a detailed written statement dealing with (1) the environmental impact of the proposed action; (2) any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; (3) alternatives to the proposed action; (4) the relationship between the local short-term use of the environment and enhancement of long-term productivity; and (5) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.3
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) established by Title II of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4341-47, has promulgated guidelines for the preparation of the statements required by § 4332(2)(C), and those guidelines appear as 40 CFR § 1500.1 Et seq. The required discussion of alternatives must include a discussion of what may be called the "no action" alternative. 40 CFR § 1500.8(a)(4).
The parties have further stipulated that all Interstate Highways must be controlled access, divided highways with a minimum of four traffic lanes as provided in 23 U.S.C. § 109(b) and 23 CFR § 625.3(a)(3), which in turn refers to a publication issued by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHO) in 1969 entitled "A Policy on Design Standards Interstate System."
In a case like this, a district court is required to perform two functions. First, it must determine whether the challenged EIS is adequate as a statement to satisfy the requirements of NEPA. If that question is answered in the affirmative, then the district court is required to go further and engage in a limited substantive review of agency action to determine whether it passes muster under the scope of review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706. However, it is not the function of the federal court ultimately to pass on the merits of the contemplated action or to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. See Arkansas Community Organization for Reform Now v. Brinegar, 398 F.Supp. 685, 695-96 (E.D.Ark.1975),4 and cases cited, including Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971), and Iowa Citizens for Environmental Quality v. Volpe, 487 F.2d 849, 852-53 (8th Cir. 1973).
The landowners are entitled, of course, to just compensation for their lands that are taken in connection with the project. United States Constitution Amendment 5, Iowa Constitution, Article I, § 18. And where, as here, partial takings are involved, the landowner is entitled to be compensated not only for the value of his land that is actually taken, but also for the diminution of the value of what is left to him after the taking. The proper measure of compensation in such a case is the difference between the fair and reasonable market value of the entire ownership immediately before the taking and the fair and reasonable market value of what is left immediately after the taking. See United States v. 91.90 Acres of Land Situate in Monroe County, Mo., 586 F.2d 79 (8th Cir. 1978), Cert. denied, 441 U.S. 944, 99 S.Ct. 2162, 60 L.Ed.2d 1045 (1979); Twin-State Eng'r. & Chem. Co. v. Iowa State Highway Comm'n., 197 N.W.2d 575, 577-78 (Iowa 1972); Freshwater v. Wildman, 254 Iowa 404, 117 N.W.2d 910, 912-13 (1962).
Plaintiffs first contend that the discussion of the 'no action' alternative, involving two paragraphs in the final EIS (See EIS at p. 62), was inadequate. The court is of the opinion, however, that the paginal length of an alternatives discussion is not in itself controlling. Furthermore, it should be noted again that an EIS need not be exhaustive or inordinately detailed. Iowa Citizens for Environmental Quality, Inc. v. Volpe, 487 F.2d 849, 852 (8th Cir. 1973). It need only be sufficient to serve as a Basis for consideration of the environmental impacts of the various reasonably feasible alternatives available. Id., at 851. See, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 551 (98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460) (1977).10
10. 'But, as should be obvious even upon a moment's reflection, the term "alternatives" (in NEPA, 42 USC § 4332(c)) is not self-defining. To make an impact statement something more than an exercise in frivolous boilerplate the concept of alternatives must be bounded by some notion of feasibility.' 435 U.S., at 551 (98 S.Ct. 1197.
The court cannot conclude, therefore, that the two paragraph discussion of the no action alternative was arbitrary or unreasonable under the circumstances involved. Compare, Vermont Yankee, supra, at 549-55 (98 S.Ct. 1197).
The court emphasizes again that it is not its function to substitute its substantive judgment for that of the responsible agencies with respect to what alternative should have been selected as the 'best.' Vermont Yankee, supra, 435 U.S., at 555 (98 S.Ct. 1197). The substantive balancing of environmental against other important national goals and policies is the discretionary function of the administrative decision-makers. The court views plaintiffs' contentions with respect to alternatives to constitute an invitation for the court to substitute its substantive decision for that already made by defendants. As such, the court must, of course, decline.
In conclusion, the court finds the EIS' discussion of alternatives not unreasonable in light of the circumstances surrounding the action actually pending before the responsible agencies; which include the interstate highway design requirements imposed by federal laws and regulation, and the content of public hearings held for purposes of deciding what alternative should be selected. See, Vermont Yankee, supra, 435 U.S., at 549-55 (98 S.Ct. 1197); Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Hoffman, 566 F.2d 1060, 1071-72 (8th Cir. 1977); Iowa Citizens for Environmental Quality, Inc. v. Volpe, 487 F.2d 849, 852-53 (8th Cir. 1973). (Emphasis supplied.)
It has been argued that under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. § 103(e)(4) (Supp.1973), the Secretary might agree to a withdrawal of the segment in question from the Interstate System upon the request of the Governor of Iowa and the local governments concerned and that federal funding for a highway built through the area to less than Interstate Highway standards could be obtained. In the course of the argument we requested that supplemental briefs be filed dealing with that particular contention.
Following entry of judgment plaintiffs moved for a stay pending appeal as provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d). Specifically, they desired that the defendants be enjoined from further land acquisitions in the area until the appeal could be decided by this court. The district court denied the relief requested; it was granted, however, by this court which directed that the appeal be expedited; the stay is still in effect
We note at this point that where Interstate Highway construction is involved the responsibility for preparing an adequate EIS rests on FHWA, and the task of preparing a proper statement cannot simply be delegated by the federal agency to state highway authorities. See Arkansas Community Organization for Reform Now v. Brinegar, 398 F.Supp. 685, 696 (E.D.Ark.1975), Aff'd sub nom. Arkansas Community Organization for Reform Now v. Coleman, 531 F.2d 864 (8th Cir. 1976), and cases cited