Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Crosley Bldg. Corp. v. Sampson

Citation: 5 ELR 20711
No. No. 75-1043, 8 ERC 1430/(D.D.C., 09/29/1975)

NEPA does not require the General Services Administration to file an impact statement in conjunction with its submission to the House and Senate Public Works Committees of a prospectus for the lease of office building space in Jackson, Mississippi. Plaintiffs, owners of two office buildings in Jackson currently occupied by various federal agencies, have standing to maintain this action despite the fact that they failed to comment on the draft EIS, but are not entitled to a preliminary injunction because they have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. In the factual context of this case, the submission of the prospectus pursuant to the Public Building Act of 1959 was not a proposal for legislation within the meaning of NEPA. In addition, at the time of the submission, the GSA proposal was not sufficiently definite to require an EIS. The congressional committees ultimately approved construction of a new federal office building in Jackson, rather than the lease arrangement proposed in the prospectus.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Edward C. Berkowitz
Frosh, Lane & Edson
1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 707
Washington, D.C. 20036

Counsel for Defendants
William M. Cohen
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530