Opinion ID: 314947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: NEPA and Deference to Local Zoning

Text: 23 The agency action to be specifically reviewed is the decision of the Postal Service, acting through its agent the Corps of Engineers, not to file a detailed impact statement. 24 In considering this decision, based on submissions by the Postal Service to NCPC, including the assessment statement prepared by the Corps of Engineers, the critical questions revolve around the import of the terms significantly and quality of the human environment, as used in Sec. 102(2)(C). It is we think fairly conceded by both parties that this is a major Federal action. 2 25 The question of significance takes on a distinctive cast in the context of landuse planning. We think that much may turn on whether the Federal Government conforms to or deviates from local or regional regulations of land use. Compare Hanly v. Kleindienst II, 471 F.2d 823, 830-831 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 908, 93 S.Ct. 2290, 36 L.Ed.2d 974 (1973). 3 The policy goals of NEPA are to be achieved in cooperation with State and local governments. Section 101(a), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4331(a). 26 When local zoning regulations and procedures are followed in site location decisions by the Federal Government, there is an assurance that such environmental effects as flow from the special uses of land-the safety of the structures, cohesiveness of neighborhoods, population density, crime control, and esthetics-will be no greater than demanded by the residents acting through their elected representatives. There is room for the contention, and there may even be a presumption, that such incremental impact on the environment as is attributable to the particular land use proposed by the Federal agency is not significant, that the basic environmental impact from the project derives from the land use pattern, approved by local authorities, that prevails generally for the same kind of land use by private persons. 27 When, on the other hand, the Federal Government exercises its sovereignty so as to override local zoning protections, NEPA requires more careful scrutiny. NEPA has full vitality, and its policies cannot be taken as effectuated by local land use control, where the proposal of the Federal Government reflects a distinctive difference in kind from the types of land use, proposed by private and local government sponsors, that can fairly be taken as within the scope of local controls. The same considerations may apply where there are differences in degree so great as to make a difference in kind, or where potential environmental effects extend geographically beyond the control on one independent local or regional government. For example, whereas the Federal Government might legitimately defer to New York City zoning in matters of, say, population density, a different issue would be posed by the location within the city of an atomic reactor. Its peculiar hazards would not be limited to the citizens of New York, nor could they be controlled by them. 28 On the facts of this case, we are presented with conformity to the Permitted Uses of the zoning, but with a potential override, through reliance on Federal sovereignty, of local procedures used to control such uses. While the 1970 Resolution of MNCPC opposing this project concluded that [t]he proposed bulk mail facility is a permitted use because it was the Government that was involved, it plainly noted that the I-3 zone ordinance did not contemplate the type of use here undertaken. More importantly, counsel at oral argument represented to us that I-3 zoning uses generally require site plan supervision by Prince George's County. This type of control was not exercised here because the only input the County could make was to NCPC, and the Postal Service was not even bound to follow the NCPC conditions or requests. The Federal Government was able to avoid the potential veto by Prince George's County over the comparable proposed use of I-3 zoning by a private developer. 29 Still another qualification must be added, however, to our analysis. Not all deviations from local zoning will necessarily rise to the level of affecting the quality of human environment within the fair meaning of that term. The over-riding issue underlying MNCPC's recommended rejection of this project was social and economic and as we observed, rooted in the prospective loss of real and personal property taxation. A secondary, and related factor, was the prospect of an influx of low-income workers into the County. Concerned persons might fashion a claim, supported by linguistics and etymology, that there is an impact from people pollution on environment, if the term be stretched to its maximum. We think this type of effect cannot fairly be projected as having been within the contemplation of Congress. See Town of Groton v. Laird, 353 F.Supp. 344 (D.Conn.1972), supra note 3. The indication that this concern perhaps provided the impetus to Prince George's County in raising other, and more legitimate, potential environmental impacts, does not disqualify their legal claims, but is not entirely unrelated to the kind of assessment of the equities that must be taken into account in review of the denial of the preliminary injunction. 30 Having expressed our view that we should carefully scrutinize this decision, and engage in a hard look 4 at the decision not to file an impact statement, due to deviation from local zoning procedures, while restricting our consideration to legitimate environmental effects, we turn to the possible significant adverse impact present in this case.