Florida Wildlife Federation v. Goldschmidt

No. 80-1398-CIV-WMH (506 F. Supp. 350) (S.D. Fla. January 6, 1981)

ELR Digest

The district court denies plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to halt construction of a segment of Interstate 75(I-75) between Andytown and the Palmetto Expressway in southern Florida. Plaintiffs claimed violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), abuse of agency discretion by the Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, procedural error in granting dredge and fill permits, and violation of executive orders concerning wetlands and flood-plains.

The court rules that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction and that these requirements go beyond merely showing a violation of NEPA. After extensively reviewing the evidence on the probable harm that construction of I-75 will cause, the court rules that plaintiffs have failed to prove a threat of irreparable harm. First, the court rules that plaintiffs have failed to prove that an injunction is needed to prevent significant harm to the environment. Because the area around the highway will be developed even if the highway is not built, the highway will not be a proximate cause of the degradation likely to occur there. Even if it were a proximate cause, plaintiffs have failed to prove that the degradation will be significant. And even if it were significant, since the highway will take years to complete, any harm can be prevented by an injunction after full trial on the merits. Second, the court rules that any irreversible commitment of resources between now and full trial will not prejudice plaintiffs' case. The court will not consider the commitment of such resources in weighing the equity of a final injunction. And the court notes that the agencies have demonstrated a willingness to reevaluate the project in good faith if the law requires, regardless of their past commitments of time and money.

Turning to the balance of harm to plaintiffs and defendants, the court holds that the probably uncompensable monetary losses that an injunction would cause defendants outweigh the benefits of the injunction to plaintiffs. Further, the court notes that the plaintiffs' seven-year delay in challenging the project's environmental impact statement (EIS) may constitute laches, and weighs against plaintiffs in the balance of equities.

Weighting the public interest, the court holds that the possible harm to the environment is outweighed by the cost to the public treasury and the area's critical need to replace its present highway.

Finally, regarding the likelihood of success on the merits, the court considers only the NEPA challenges, noting that the other issues were not fully addressed at the hearing, and that even if they had been addressed, the equitable considerations discussed above would prevent the court from issuing preliminary relief. The court notes that the scope of review of an EIS is limited to examining whether the agency has followed NEPA procedures and taken a hard look at the environmental consequences of the proposed action, as judged by a rule of reason. Plaintiffs allege that the EIS failed to analyze effects of secondary growth induced by the highway, failed to consider alternatives adequately, and failed to discuss several miscellaneous impacts. With regard to induced growth, the court rules that plaintiffs have failed to prove that the impact of the proposed project on aquifers, the Everglades, and other resources would be significant, or that I-75 would induce rather than merely channel growth in the area. With regard to discussion of alternatives, the court holds that the EIS adequately discussed the no-build alternative, and that the undiscussed alternative of using the existing U.S. highway 27 corridor would cause similar or greater harm than the preferred alternative. Regarding plaintiffs' miscellaneous objections, the court notes that the EIS need not consider impacts of state and local projects likely to follow the federal project, that no evidence suggests the discussion of impacts on the Everglades was inadequate, and that no evidence suggests there will be adverse social or economic impacts on neighboring communities. Even if the objections were well taken, they would not be serious enough, under the rule of reason, to render the EIS defective.

The full text of this opinion is available from ELR (29 pp. $4.25, ELR Order No. C-1311).

Counsel for Plaintiffs
David G. Burwell
National Wildlife Federation, 1412 16th St. NW, Washington DC 20036
(202) 797-6800

Jack E. Milbery
2450 Hollywood Blvd., Hollywood FL 33020
(305) 923-8268

Counsel for Defendants
Edward B. Galante, Ass't U.S. Attorney
155 S. Miami Ave., Miami FL 33130
(305) 350-4471

Gerald L. Knight
Gustafson, Stephens, Ferris, Forman & Hall
540 NE 4th St., Fort Lauderdale FL 33301
(305) 763-9330

Harry A. Stewart, Broward Cty. General Counsel
County Cthse., Rm. 248, 201 SE 6th St., Ft. Lauderdale FL 33301
(305) 765-5105

Hoeveler, J.

[OPINION OMITTED BY PUBLISHER IN ORIGINAL SOURCE]