State of Wis. v. Weinberger
| Decision Date | 31 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-C-672-C.,83-C-672-C. |
| Citation | 578 F. Supp. 1327 |
| Parties | STATE OF WISCONSIN, Plaintiff, and County of Marquette Michigan, Intervening Plaintiff, v. Caspar W. WEINBERGER, individually and as Secretary of the Department of Defense, the United States Department of Defense, John F. Lehman, Jr., individually and as Secretary of the Department of the Navy, and the United States Department of the Navy, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Shari Eggleson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, Wis., for the State of Wis.
Patricia Micklow, Chief Civ. Counsel, Marquette County, Marquette, Mich., for intervening plaintiff County of Marquette, Michigan.
John Byrnes, U.S. Atty., Madison, Wis., for defendant.
This is a civil action in which plaintiff State of Wisconsin seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction of any additional work by defendants on Project ELF submarine communication facilities in northern Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan until defendants have prepared a supplemental environmental impact statement. Plaintiff contends a supplemental environmental impact statement is required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4335 and implementing regulations.
Marquette County, Michigan has been granted leave to intervene permissively, with its participation limited to the issue whether a supplemental environmental impact statement is necessary for the proposed ELF Project in northern Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan because of significant new information concerning biological effects of extremely low frequency electromagnetic radiation.
A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction was consolidated with a trial on the merits of the case. At the conclusion of the trial, I denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. I held that the question of ultimate success on the merits was a close one and plaintiffs had not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing; that the main thrust of plaintiffs' case was directed to the operation of the ELF facility and the biological consequences of that operation and plaintiffs had not shown that defendants' continued work on the construction aspects of the Wisconsin and upper Michigan ELF facilities constituted irreparable harm; that the balance of harms was approximately even; and that the public interest would not be served or disserved by the issuance of an injunction at that time. I stated that construction work such as the preparation of the sites, erection of buildings, upgrading of existing buildings, and installation of antennae could go forward if defendants were willing to assume the risk that they would subsequently be enjoined from completing the work and putting the facilities into operation.
As a threshold matter, I must consider defendants' motion to limit judicial review of the Navy's compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act to a review of the administrative record.
There are two exceptions to the ordinary rule that judicial review of agency...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Wis. v. Weinberger
...both plaintiffs and defendants identified post-1977 research either as new information worth further inquiry or as important research. 578 F.Supp. at 1362. The district court went on to conclude that "the 1977 environmental impact statement is no longer adequate as a source of information n......
- State of Wis. v. Weinberger
-
Williams v. Cabrera
...fences or of any alleged dangerousness of electromagnetic radiation emitting from such fences in that case. Wisconsin v. Weinberger, 578 F. Supp. 1327 (W.D. Wis. 1984), rev'd, 736 F.2d 438 (7th Cir. 1984), does to some extent concern electromagnetic radiation - it considers a challenge to t......
-
EMFs and the potential for injury: real danger or overreaction?
...On the Line, ABA J. at 40 (Jan. 1994). (14.)EMF in Your Environment, supra note 3, at 22-24. (15.)Id. (16.)See Wisconsin v. Weinberger, 578 F.Supp. 1327 (W.D. Wis. 1984) (first judicial recognition of both public's growing awareness and increasing scientific studies of EMFs). See also Charl......