Opinion ID: 2194614
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Watershed Case

Text: After the Transfer of Jurisdiction was completed, several environmental groups, including the Anacostia Watershed Society, sued the National Park Service and others, alleging that the transfer violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). [2] See Anacostia Watershed Society v. Babbitt, 871 F.Supp. 475, 478 (D.D.C.1994) ( Watershed I ). They sought a declaration that the transfer violated NEPA and an order rescinding the transfer. Id. at 478. On December 9, 1994, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declared that the National Park Service had violated NEPA and ordered it to immediately comply by preparing an environmental impact statement or performing an environmental assessment of the effects of the Transfer of Jurisdiction. Id. at 488. The court retained jurisdiction over the matter to facilitate prompt judicial review if the National Park Service did not comply with the court's order and if a change in the status quo with respect to the leased lands is threatened before the [National Park Service] ha[s] fully complied with the National Environmental Policy Act. Id. The plaintiffs moved the court to clarify or amend its order by setting aside as void ab initio the transfer of jurisdiction. . . . Anacostia Watershed Society v. Babbitt, 875 F.Supp. 1, 1 (D.D.C.1995) ( Watershed II ). However, the court decline[d] to rescind the transfer. . . . So far as the evidence revealed, the National Park Service could preserve the status quo pending full compliance with NEPA. . . . Id. at 2. Other problems developed because the federal government retained ownership of the Islands. For example, no buildings or structures could be built on federally owned land within the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress, D.C.Code § 10-128 (2001), so IDC could not obtain financing or begin construction.