Western New York Youth Climate Council v. New York State Department of Transportation

In lawsuits challenging New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) approvals for a highway project in Buffalo, the New York Supreme Court ruled on four motions to dismiss. In the <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/east-side-parkways-coalition-v-new-york-state-department-of-transportation/">lawsuit</a> challenging the environmental review for the project, the court annulled permits and NYSDOT’s negative declaration finding that the project would not have significant adverse environmental impacts. The court found that “[n]o rational person can conclude, based on the record before this Court, that this project would not have an adverse impact on the affected community.” The court cited “undisputed potential adverse health effects that will occur from the greenhouse emissions, traffic, blasting, and other related impacts associated with heavy industrial construction.” The court ordered NYSDOT to prepare an environmental impact statement and permanently enjoined NYSDOT from proceeding with the project until it complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In the same decision, the court denied a motion to dismiss this separate proceeding alleging that NYSDOT violated the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act and the petitioners’ rights to clean air and a healthy environment under the New York Constitution. The court found that the petitioners “set forth convincing allegations that this project will affect the disadvantaged community around the construction site.” In particular, the court found that the record showed that greenhouse gas and other construction emissions would increase as a result of the project and also found that NYSDOT’s claim “that somehow and at some time this project will reduce emissions” was “debatable.” The court granted the motions to dismiss the other two lawsuits.

–

In a <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/east-side-parkways-coalition-v-new-york-state-department-of-transportation/">proceeding</a> challenging compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), a New York Supreme Court granted a motion for a preliminary injunction to block a project to re-establish a parkway to replace the existing Kensington Expressway in the City of Buffalo. The court, however, denied two other preliminary injunction motions in proceedings seeking to block the project based on alleged violations of New York’s public trust doctrine, the New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), and the New York Constitution’s Green Amendment. First, in a proceeding that did not raise climate change-related issues, the court found that petitioners were unlikely to prevail on their claim that the former parkway (the Humboldt Parkway) was dedicated parkland and that the respondents violated the public trust doctrine when they replaced it with the Kensington Expressway. The court agreed with the respondents that the Humboldt Parkway was a road, not parkland. Second, in the Western New York Youth Climate Council proceeding, the court found that petitioners were unlikely to succeed on their claims that the respondents ignored the adverse impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and violated the CLCPA by failing to make necessary vehicles-miles-traveled reductions and to prioritize reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in disadvantaged communities. The court said the petitioners presented “no proof” to contradict the respondents’ conclusions regarding greenhouse gas emissions. The court also said it was “unreasonable” to expect the project to “revamp a portion of a highway with the goal of recreating a parkway that will reconnect two communities without at least a short-term impact on the environment” and said it was “pure fantasy” to expect “a complete reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” Third, the court in the Western New York Youth Climate Council proceeding concluded that the New York Constitution’s Green Amendment was not intended to apply retroactively to actions such as construction of the expressway and, moreover, that the petitioners’ allegations regarding how the construction and maintenance of the expressway violated the Green Amendment lacked specificity. Under SEQRA, the court concluded that petitioners demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that an environmental impact statement (EIS) should have been prepared. The court said it was “troubled” by the respondents’ issuance of a negative declaration for the project. The court questioned whether the project’s traffic disruption could be classified as temporary and said that little information had been provided about construction noise and vibration impacts. The court also found that the petitioners demonstrated irreparable harm if construction began without preparation of an EIS and that the balance of the equities favored the plaintiffs. The court ordered the petitioners to post an undertaking of $100,000 within 90 days.