Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database
Collection

Safe Skies Clean Water Wisconsin, Inc. v. National Guard Bureau

Safe Skies Clean Water Wisconsin, Inc. v. National Guard Bureau 

3:20-cv-01086W.D. Wis.2 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
01/03/2022
Decision
Plaintiff motion for summary judgment denied and defendants' motion for summary judgment granted.
The federal district court for the Western District of Wisconsin rejected claims that the National Guard Bureau violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it evaluated 27 construction, demolition, and renovation projects at the 115th Fighter Wing installation of the Wisconsin Air National Guard at the Dane County Regional Airport in Madison. The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that an environmental impact statement or supplemental environmental assessment should have been prepared and also found that the environmental review had not been improperly segmented from the review of a decision to base F-35A aircraft at the airport—a decision that the plaintiff challenged in a separate action. In rejecting the improper segmentation claim, the court also rejected the argument that the National Guard Bureau failed to consider climate change—the court said the defendants were not obligated to consider the effects of the decision to “beddown” F-35A aircraft at the airport, and that the plaintiff could pursue this argument in the other action. The court also found that the defendants adequately considered cumulative effects and environmental justice and did not violate notice and public participation requirements.
12/07/2020
Complaint
Complaint filed.
A nonprofit organization challenged the environmental review for construction and demolition projects at the Wisconsin Air National Guard’s 115th Fighter Wing Installation at a regional airport in Madison. The plaintiff asserted that the National Guard Bureau violated NEPA by preparing an environmental assessment instead of an environmental impact statement and by issuing a finding of no significant impact. Among the NEPA violations alleged in the complaint was a failure to adequately consider climate change, including by minimizing the project’s greenhouse gas emissions and by failing to consider climate change effects on soil and groundwater emissions of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.