Citizens for Mass Transit Against Freeways v. Brinegar

ELR Citation: ELR 20747
No(s). 71-636 (D. Ariz. Apr 5, 1973)

The district court refuses to enjoin further action on several sections of I-10 in various stages of development and grants summary judgment to defendants. In disposition of plaintiffs' challenges, the court holds that:

(1) where disclosure of environmental factors in the finally approved impact statement was full enough that the Secretary could arrive at an informed decision, the procedural requirements of NEPA are satisfied;

(2) plaintiffs' request for an injunction before mounting expenditures tip the balance of public interest in favor of building a section of highway for which the impact statement has not yet been approved, is refused since defendants are making an effort to comply with NEPA;

(3) on the section to be built on parkland bought in 1965 and adjacent to parkland still owned by the city, action will not be enjoined for failure to comply with 23 U.S.C.A. §138 and 49 U.S.C.A. §1653(f), since the final impact statement submitted on Jan. 8, 1973, presents the factors mentioned in those statutes to the Secretary for consideration;

(4) where federal system approval has been obtained, and the Arizona Highway Department is studying nine possible routes through or near a city park and has purchased land pursuant to federal regulations, there is no major federal action warranting an injunction against property acquisition pending compliance with NEPA and 49 U.S.C.A. §1653(f);

(5) neither NEPA itself nor §134 of the Federal Aid Highway Act demands that mass transit planning be included in an impact statement or considered in conjunction with a particular highway plan;

(6) division of this highway into three segments for purposes of impact statements is sanctioned because the division is not artificial, piecemeal, or undertaken to avoid statutory requirements. The court retains jurisdiction and requires defendants to inform plaintiffs of any impending federal action on the highway proposed to affect Papago Park.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Gerald F. Moore
810 Luhrs Tower
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Flynn, Kimerer, Thinnes & Galbraith
Suite 1950, 100 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Counsel for Defendant
Stanley Z. Goodfarb
E. Dennis Siler Assistant Attorneys General
206 South 16th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85007

You must be an ELI Member to access the full content.

You are not logged in. To access this content: