Opinion ID: 1713897
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: The EIS

Text: ś 305. As noted by the majority, WEPA is patterned after its federal counterpart, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Majority op., ś 188 n. 42. [1] The object of both statutes is to ensure that agencies carefully consider environmental impacts before committing to undertake certain major actions. State ex rel. Boehm v. DNR, 174 Wis. 2d 657, 665, 497 N.W.2d 445 (1993); Simmons v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 120 F.3d 664, 666 (7th Cir. 1997). To this end, the statutes require agencies to prepare an EIS on actions that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Wis. Stat. § 1.11(2)(c); 42 U.S.C. § 4332(c). ś 306. The purpose of the EIS is to enable agencies to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of its proposed action. Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club v. DHSS, 130 Wis. 2d 56, 72, 387 N.W.2d 245 (1986) (citing New York Natural Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. Kleppe, 429 U.S. 1307, 1311 (1976)). This hard look is necessary in order to inform the commission and the public of significant environmental impacts of a proposed action and its alternatives, and reasonable methods of avoiding or minimizing adverse environmental effects. Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 4.30(1). ś 307. To fulfill its function, the EIS must set forth sufficient information for the general public to make an informed evaluation, and for the decisionmaker to `consider fully the environmental factors involved and to make a reasoned decision after balancing the risks of harm to the environment against the benefits to be derived from the proposed action.' Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 701 F.2d 1011, 1029 (2d Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). In so doing, the EIS insures the integrity of the process of decision by giving assurance that stubborn problems or serious criticisms have not been `swept under the rug.' Id. ś 308. This hard look requirement sets a high standard for the agencies, a standard which must be rigorously enforced by the reviewing courts. Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Comm., Inc. v. U.S. Atomic Energy Comm'n, 449 F.2d 1109, 1114 (D.C. Cir. 1971). If an agency's decision was reached procedurally without individualized consideration and balancing of environmental factorsâ conducted fully and in good faithâ it is the responsibility of the courts to reverse. Id. at 1115. Indeed, courts have not hesitated to invalidate an EIS that fails to include the requisite level of discussion and analysis. [2]