ELR Citation: ELR 20939
No(s). 90 C 1712 (N.D. Ill. Jun 7, 1990)

The court holds that the Postal Service's environmental assessment (EA) for construction of a regional mail distribution center violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Postal Service's own handbook regulations. The city seeks to enjoin the Postal Service from building its facility in a location that violates the city's zoning law and possibly causes environmental as well as social and economic damages to the city. The court first holds that the city's challenge is not barred under the doctrine of laches because the city has not unreasonably delayed the suit and prejudiced defendant's position. The city's decision to pursue litigation as an option of the last resort, without more, does not constitute an unreasonable delay, especially when the parties were negotiating in good faith. Further, the city immediately sought an injunction once the government broke off negotiation. Defendant is also not prejudiced by the delay of the suit. Because the construction has not begun and defendant's only expenditure is its purchase of the site, the suit, which is based on the EA, has no effect on that purchase incurred before the EA's completion. Further, delay in construction is inevitable even without the lawsuit and can be attributed to the Postal Service's decision to revamp its plans.

The court holds that the city's count alleging that no EA has been conducted for the presently planned facility is not moot. Defendant's promise to redesign the construction plans according to the existing EA does not moot the city's claim. Redesigning may call for the redraft of the EA, especially when defendant's plans after breaking off negotiation significantly differ from the original project studied in the EA.

The court next holds that defendant has not sufficiently determined that its new facility on the McDade site will not significantly affect the human environment. The court finds that the Postal Service's determination is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to take a "hard look" at all the relevant factors, including floodplain impacts, noise pollution, traffic congestion, and other social/economic impacts, as required by Council on Environmental Quality under NEPA and the Postal Service's own guidelines. The EA adequately analyzed land use and zoning issues and tax consequences to the city. The court also holds that defendant fails to adequately consider alternative sites as required under NEPA §102(2)(E) and defendant's own regulations in Handbook RE-6. The court finds defendant's explanation for rejecting alternative sites inadequate. The reasons given in the EA for rejecting the alternative sites are brief and perfunctory, showing little distinctions between them and the chosen McDade site. The court further finds that having accepted a site suggested by the city as a possible alternative, defendant is obligated to fully study the site as required under NEPA and cannot reject it without reason.

Because of the unsettled nature of the current plans for the facility, the court presently cannot decide whether an environmental impact statement is necessary. Finally, the court holds that factual issues remain concerning whether defendant has violated the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. Defendant, in rejecting the alternative site suggested by the city without reason, has not shown that it has complied with its duty under the Act to develop a reviewable record that fully considers and explains rejections of local planning objectives.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Robert T. Markowski, Edward J. Lewis II, Robert L. Denby
Jenner & Block
One IBM Plaza, Chicago IL 60611
(312) 222-9350

Counsel for Defendant
Terry M. Kinney
U.S. Attorney's Office
219 S. Dearborn St., Rm. 1500, Chicago IL 60604
(312) 353-5300