Julis v. City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 72-C-31-CR.

• Decision Date: 08 August 1972
• Docket Number: No. 72-C-31-CR.,72-C-31-CR.
• Citation: 349 F. Supp. 88
• Parties: Richard E. JULIS et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA, a municipal corporation, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

349 F. Supp. 88

Richard E. JULIS et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA, a municipal corporation, et al., Defendants.

No. 72-C-31-CR.

United States District Court, N. D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division.

August 8, 1972.

Robert C. Gross, Iowa City, Iowa, for plaintiffs.

Asher Schroeder, Iowa Highway Commission, Ames, Iowa, C. Kenneth Cranston, U. S. Dept. of Transportation, Kansas City, Mo., Evan L. Hultman, U. S. Atty., Sioux City, Iowa, David F. McGuire, City Atty., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for defendants.

ORDER

McMANUS, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' complaint filed July 19, 1972, seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining certain street construction work on Mt. Vernon Road in Cedar Rapids, Linn County, Iowa, and a declaratory judgment that such construction is in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Plaintiffs base their claim upon the failure of defendants to prepare an environmental impact statement as prescribed by NEPA.¹ A consolidated hearing pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(2) was held on July 26 and 27, 1972. The court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter. 5 U.S.C. § 702, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

The work, officially identified by the acronym TOPICS (Traffic Operations Program to Improve Capacity and Safety) #72-T-006, involves a total expenditure of $651,515.55, $313,089.88 being the federal contribution. The construction area encompasses fourteen blocks.² The undertaking primarily eliminates a bottleneck by widening a portion of an existing major traffic artery from two lanes to four lanes and includes traffic signal installations and a pedestrian overpass.

As noted above, NEPA requires the filing of an environmental impact statement for "major Federal Actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." (Emphasis added.) Therefore the threshold question for the court, involving a twofold determination, is whether the project is a "major federal action" and if "major", whether it significantly affects the quality of the human environment. Absent either element the Act does not apply.

Being of relatively recent origin (effective date January 1, 1970) the decisions interpreting specific provisions of the Act are scanty. From research of legislative history, little light has been shed on the meaning of the words "major federal action." See 1969 U.S.Code Cong. and Adm.News, p. 2751 et seq. Nor have the briefs of counsel been helpful. Generally the cases have been concerned with projects of such magnitude that the question is not raised. See Named Ind. Mem. of San Antonio Conservation Soc. v. Texas Hy. Dept., 446 F.2d 1013 (5 Cir. 1971) (Highway project ultimately crossing parkland involving cost of $12.6 million); Morning-side-Lenox Park Association v. Volpe, 334 F.Supp. 132 (D.C.1971) (Interstate Highway involving cost of $95 million); Environment Defense Fund v. Corps of Eng. of the U. S. Army, 325 F.Supp. 728 (D.C.1971) (Construction of dam inundating 4,680 acres—cost of $14.8 million).

However, the inclusion of the term "major" raises the obvious inference that not every federal action was meant to be included. Congress evidently intended to exclude from consideration the myriad minor activities with which the federal government becomes involved.

The spectrum of federal actions affecting the human environment range from the manufacture and sale of an 8 cent stamp by the Postal Service to the construction of the Interstate Highway System by the Federal Highway Administration at an estimated cost of $76 billion and to the waging of the Viet Nam War by the Department of Defense. Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary defines "major" as ". . . greater in dignity, rank, importance, or interest: SUPERIOR . . . greater in number, quantity or extent: LARGER . . . notable or conspicuous in effect or scope: CONSIDERABLE, PRINCIPAL . . ." It is the view of the court that by using the term "major" Congress reasonably intended to limit the Act to those federal actions of superior, larger and considerable importance, involving substantial expenditure of money, time and resources.

The United States Department of Transportation Guidelines, which deal with implementing this section of NEPA, state what appear to be reasonable considerations to be used in determining whether a highway section represents a "major" action.

The following should be used to determine whether a proposal to construct or improve a highway section is a major action a. Highway sections entirely or generally on new location.

b. Major up-grading of an existing highway section resulting in a functional characteristic change (e. g., a local road becoming an arterial highway). Such changes usually result by adding lanes, interchanges, access control, medians, etc., and require extensive

...