Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Morton, Civ. A. No. 73-2188.

• Decision Date: 13 September 1974
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 73-2188.
• Citation: 381 F. Supp. 293
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff, v. Rogers C. B. MORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

381 F. Supp. 293

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff, v. Rogers C. B. MORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 73-2188.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

September 13, 1974.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

David L. Kurtz, Deputy Atty. Gen., Com. of Pa., Harrisburg, Pa., for plaintiff.

Myles E. Flint, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for federal defendants.

Jerome H. Gerber, Harrisburg, Pa., for private defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CORCORAN, District Judge.

The plaintiff is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The defendants are (1) the Secretary of the Interior; (2) the Director, National Park Service; (3) the National Gettysburg Battlefield Tower, Inc., and (4) Thomas R. Ottenstein. Defendants (1) and (2) are hereinafter referred to as the "federal defendants" and defendants (3) and (4) as the "private defendants."

The plaintiff seeks both declaratory and injunctive relief in a five-count complaint.

The Court's jurisdiction is premised upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1361, 2201-2202; 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; and 16 U.S.C. § 470f (1970).¹

Pending before the Court are motions for summary judgment by the defendants and plaintiff's opposition thereto. Upon consideration of the entire record herein and oral argument on the motions, the Court concludes that the defendants' motion must be granted as to Count II; that Counts I, IV and V must be dismissed; and that for reasons stated hereinafter a remand to the Secretary of the Interior is deemed appropriate to aid in the ultimate resolution of Count III.

I

The facts necessary to an understanding of this dispute follow.²

In 1970, the private defendants proposed to construct a 300-foot steel observation tower on private property immediately adjacent to the Gettysburg National Cemetery. Upon learning of the proposal, the National Park Service (NPS) became concerned as to its impact upon the battlefield park. Mr. George P. Hartzog of NPS registered his opposition. The private defendants then decided to relocate the tower, again on private property, at a site known as Colt Park, nearby to the site of Pickett's historic charge between Seminary and Cemetery Ridges. The NPS reiterated its previous objections, although recognizing that since the tower was to be located on private property, it, NPS, was without legal authority to prevent its construction. NPS was so advised by the office of the Solicitor of the Interior Department.

In early May, 1971, the private defendants began construction of the tower at Colt Park. Negotiations nevertheless continued between the NPS and the private defendants during the months of May and June. The negotiations culminated on July 2, 1971, in an "Agreement and Land Exchange" by which NPS granted to the private defendants a 200-foot right-of-way across federal park lands to a so-called Stonehenge site where the private defendants agreed to locate the tower.³ The private defendants also agreed to convey the Colt Park site in fee to the federal government.

Like the Colt Park site, the Stonehenge site was, and is, private property lying outside the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park.

On July 20, 1971, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania brought suit against the private defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County in which the Stonehenge site is located. The Commonwealth sought to enjoin construction of the tower.⁴ After lengthy proceedings, Judge MacPhail of the Court of Common Pleas on October 26, 1971, made a Finding of Fact that the "proposed tower at the proposed site will not irreparably damage the natural, historic, scenic or aesthetic values of the environment of the Gettysburg . . ." (III Record 495a), and refused to order injunctive relief. The Commonwealth filed exceptions to the MacPhail order on the ground that the Agreement violated federal law, not because it violated the National Environmental Policy Act, but because it had not been reviewed by the President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. On January 14, 1972, the Court again dismissed the exceptions to its refusal to grant injunctive relief. The Commonwealth then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, an intermediate appellate court.

Shortly thereafter, the President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation reviewed the Agreement and concluded that the proposed tower would have an adverse effect on the Gettysburg scene, and that Interior should attempt to block its completion. (Reed Affidavit, Exhibit AA.)

Following the Advisory Council recommendations, the Secretary of the Interior, on May 26, 1972, notified plaintiff that the Agreement "did not in any way, by its specific terms or by implication, constitute an approval by (Interior) of the concept of the tower as a feature of the Gettysburg area scene, whether it is located at the Stonehenge site or any other site." However, the Secretary continued, it was Interior's belief that the Stonehenge site "would be less destructive of historic values than at the Colt Park site . . .," and that the "agreement constituted an effort on our part to minimize the adverse effect of the tower on Gettysburg . . . ." (Reed Affidavit, Exhibit CC.) From that point forward, the federal defendants took all possible steps to prevent the erection of the tower even to the point of appearing as witnesses in the Pennsylvania proceedings.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania took cognizance of the Advisory Council opinion and remanded the case to Judge MacPhail. On July 27, 1972, Judge MacPhail reaffirmed his earlier opinion (III Record 623a), including a finding of fact that the Interior Department, by the terms of the Agreement had "sanction(ed) the erection of the proposed tower at the proposed site." (III Record 495a.) The case returned to the Commonwealth Court which on April 3, 1973, rejected plaintiff's appeal and affirmed in toto Judge MacPhail. Commonwealth v. National Gettysburg Battlefield Tower, Inc., 8 Cmwlth. 231, 302 A.2d 886 (1973). Plaintiff then petitioned the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On October 3, 1973, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Commonwealth Court affirming Judge MacPhail. The Supreme Court also found that Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution was not "self-executing." Commonwealth v. National Gettysburg Battlefield Tower, Inc., 454 Pa. 193, 311 A.2d 588 (1973). Shortly thereafter, on December 18, 1973, plaintiff instituted the present action.⁵

II

Against that background we turn to an examination of the complaint.

A. Count I

This count is virtually identical to that previously processed through and dismissed by the Pennsylvania state courts. The prayer for relief is the same: viz., to enjoin the private defendants from the construction of the proposed tower. Both complaints indicate that construction is continuing⁶ on private property adjacent to the Gettysburg National Military Park; both complaints indicate that the erection of the tower would irreparably harm the natural and historic environment of the battlefield; and both complaints indicate that the plaintiff is proceeding under Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Although it is true that the present complaint adds the federal defendants, it is also true that the essence of Count I is a prayer for relief directed only to the private defendants to enjoin construction of the tower. Under the familiar principles of the doctrine res judicata, Count I is clearly barred. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597, 68 S. Ct. 715, 92 L.Ed. 898 (1948), citing Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352, 24 L.Ed. 195 (1877). See also C. Wright, Federal Courts 50-51 (2d ed. 1970). Count I has been fully litigated in the Pennsylvania courts. There was the same subject matter, the same parties in interest and a final judgment on the merits adverse to plaintiff's claim. "It is obvious that the state courts would not allow retrial of this cause and neither will the federal courts." Township of Hopewell v. Volpe, 446 F.2d 167, 170 (3d Cir. 1971). Thus, it is clear beyond peradventure that Count I must be dismissed as barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

B. Count II

This Count attacks the authority of the federal defendants to enter into the Land Exchange Agreement. However, the legal authority to enter into such an agreement is specifically provided in 16 U.S.C. § 460l-22(b) (1970), which is set out in the margin.⁷ Accordingly the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this issue.⁸

C. Count III

Count III is discussed under Part III, infra.

D. Count IV

In Count IV, plaintiff claims that the failure of the federal defendants to seek congressional authorization to proceed by eminent domain and condemn the tower site was a "major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" and therefore should have occasioned the filing of an environmental impact statement under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S. C. § 4332(2)(C). As relief, plaintiff asks this Court to compel the filing of a NEPA statement and, further, to direct the federal defendants to condemn the property on which the tower is located.

The Court need not reach the NEPA question as related to condemnation for plaintiff's requested relief to compel condemnation is clearly beyond this Court's jurisdiction. Mandamus will lie only to compel a ministerial act and not one committed to agency discretion. See, e. g., United States v. Walker, 409 F.2d 477 (9th Cir. 1969); Powell v. Katzenbach, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 250, 359 F.2d 234 (1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 906, 86 S.Ct. 1341, 16 L.Ed.2d 359 (1966). Cf. Carlson v. Schlesinger, 364 F.Supp. 626 (D.D.C.1973). There is no federal statute which imposes the ministerial duty upon the federal defendants to condemn the tower site or, further, to seek legislation that would authorize condemnation of that site. The question as to...