(c) Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (Congressional power to regulate commerce) (d) Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (Congressional power over public lands) (e) Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments B. Act of Congress authorizing the Construction of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal Project, Public Law 77-675 (H.R. 6999), approved July 23, 1942. C. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 852, 42 U.S.C.A. Section 4321, et seq. (1970). D. 33 U.S.C. Section 622 (Duty of Secretary of Army to apply monies appropriated for improvements of rivers and harbors in carrying out public works project). E. 5 U.S.C. Section 552 (Public Information Act) F. 5 U.S.C. Section 702 (Judicial Review of Administrative Action) 2. Plaintiff, the Canal Authority of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the Canal Authority is a body corporate and State agency organized under the laws of the State of Florida pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 374.011, et seq. Its principal place of business is located at 803 Rosselle Street, Jacksonville, Florida, within the Middle District of Florida. The Canal Authority, as lineal successor to the Ship Canal Authority of the State of Florida, was organized for the purposes of, inter alia, providing without cost to the United States Army Corps of Engineers all of the lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal Project. Florida Statutes, Sub-section 374.051, 374.171. Pursuant to its statutory obligation as local sponsor for the CrossFlorida Barge Canal Project, Plaintiff, has used all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, to promote efforts which would prevent or eliminate any damage to the environment which might be caused by the construction of the Canal project. 3. Defendant, Stanley R. Resor is Secretary of the Army of the United States. Defendant, Lieutenant General Frederick J. Clarke is the Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers. Defendant, Colonel A. S. Fullerton, is the District Engineer of the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers whose office is located at 400 West Bay Street, Jacksonville, Florida, within the Middle District of Florida. Defendants, Secretary of the Army, Chief of Engineers and District Engineer will be referred to collectively as the Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers is a branch of the United States Army, 10 U.S.C., § 3063. It is charged by statute with the accomplishment of certain civil functions of the Department of the Army, such as the construction of canals, dikes, reservoirs, river and harbor improvements, and flood control projects, 10 U.S.C., § 3535. Defendants, Corps of Engineers and Stanley R. Resor, Secretary of the Army, are specifically charged by statute with the responsibility for constructing the Cross-Florida Barge Canal Project in accordance with House Document 109/79/1. Public Law 77-675 (July 23, 1942). Defendants, Russell E. Train, Robert Cahn and Dr. Gordon MacDonald comprise the Council on Environmental Quality whose chief statutory function is to assist and advise the President in recommending environmental legislation programs to Congress. See 42 U.S.C.A., § 4341, et. seq., (1970). The individual Defendants have been responsible for actions which have taken place and which are beyond their statutory power to perform, are constitutionally void, and for actions constituting failures to perform duties owed to Plaintiff complained of herein. Equitable relief is sought against these Defendants individually and in their official capacities to enjoin them from further illegal actions and to compel them to fulfill their legal duties to Plaintiff. 4. The Court has jurisdiction over this action under : A. 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 (Federal Question Statute) B. 28 U.S.C. Section 1337 (Commerce Regulation) C. 5 U.S.C. Section 702 (Judicial Review of Administrative Action) D. 5 U.S.C. Section 552 (Public Information Act) E. 28 U.S.C. Section 1361 (Mandamus) F. 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 & 2202 (Declaratory Judgment Acts) 5. The matter in controversy, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum of $10,000.00. 6. In 1942, Congress authorized the construction of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal in accordance with the plans set forth in House Document 109/79/1. Pub. lic Law 77-675 (July 23, 1942). The project plans provide for a high-level lock barge canal 107 miles long from the St. Johns River near Palatka, thence through the valley of the Oklawaha River across the divide to the Gulf of Mexico L the Withlacoochee River. No construction was done on the project until abert 1964. Each year since 1962 the United States Congress has made appropriations for design and construction of the project. In its 1971 Fiscal year appropriation Congress specifically directed that construction of the Cross-Florida Bar Canal project should not be delayed for any additional environmental impet studies in light of the fact that thorough studies had already been made whic! supported the conclusion that the overall effect of the project would be a lor. term gain in environmental quality. H.R. Report No. 91-1219 at pages 3. 58, 91Congress, 2nd Session, June 18, 1970; Senate Report No. 91-1118, Calendar N 1129, pages 4, 5, 29; 91st Congress 2nd Session (August 12, 1970). This COLgressional direction that canal project construction not be delayed was made with full cognizance of the requirements set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Senate Report No. 91-1118, Calendar No. 1129, pages 3-4. 91st Congress, 2nd Session (August 12, 1970). Defendant, Corps of Engineers has to date expended approximately $50 million of the $60 million appropriated by Congress in the construction and design of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal. Before construction and design of the Cross-Florida Barge project was coOLFmenced by Defendant, Corps of Engineers, Congress required that local interests furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they would "provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction of the canal, hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; and take over maintain and operate all new public highways built in connection with the project". House Document 109, 79th Congress, 1st Session (Letter dated June 12 1942, from Chief of Engineers to House Committee on Rivers and Harbors Plaintiff, Canal Authority, as lineal successor to the Ship Canal Authority of the State of Florida, furnished the assurances as local sponsor required by Con gress and said assurances were accepted by the District Engineer, Jacksonville, District Corps of Engineers on or about November 13, 1963. Construction of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal Project was begun in 1964 Ev the Defendant, Corps of Engineers, under the direction of the Defendant, Secze tary of the Army. Since 1964, Plaintiff, Canal Authority, has substantia'lcomplied with its obligation as local sponsor for the project by expending approximately $12 million in acquisition of rights-of-way land situated in Putnan Marion, Levy and Citrus counties within the Middle District of Florida. Ninety per cent of the required rights-of-way have been furnished to Defendant, Corps of Engineers, either by conveyance from Plaintiff or under right-of-entry agre ments and Defendant, Corps of Engineers, has utilized said lands in completing approximately one-third of the construction of the project. Title to the majority of the rights-of-way lands is now vested in the Plaintiff, Canal Authority. The Cross-Florida Barge Canal Project authorized by Congress (Public Law 77-675) was designed to promote the national defense and to facilitate the transportation of materials and supplies under both wartime and normal conditions of commerce. The project plans approved by Congress (House Document No. 106 79th Congress. 1st Session, and the Definite Project Report—Cross-Florida Barge Canal, dated December, 1943) provided for flood control, water supply hydrology and other construction and design plans adopted to prevent or eliminate damage to a healthful environment and to contribute to the preservation and enhance ment of the environment contained within the Canal project. On or about January 20, 1971, the Defendants, Secretary of Army, Chief of Engineers. Corps of Engineers and Jacksonville District Engineer, ordered a complete halt in all construction on the canal project with the intention of abandoning completion of the project. At the time the construction halt was ordered by Defendants the following construction phases were in progress : (1) New State Road 40 bridge at the east end of the project in Marion County. Florida : (2) Railroad relocation bridge at Dunnellon. Florida, across Blue Run: (3) Conal bank improvement consisting of shaping, grading and sodding near Inglis Lock at the west end in Levy County. Florida : (4) Bypass culvert at west end of project in Levy County. Florida; The result of Defendants' permanent halt of project construction will be to permit dangerous flooding conditions to continue unabated on Canal rights-ofway lends now owned by Plaintiff. in both the Oklawaha and Withlac schep River Valleys to permit infiltration, siltation, and pollution of the Withlac chee River, and a failure to preserve the natural flow of the Withlacoochee River which in turn will permit salt water infiltration into the natural fresh waters of the Withlacoochee. The abandonment of the Canal project will also result in the automatic reversion of approximately 8,000 acres of rights-of-way now owned in perpetual easement by Plaintiff, lying within the Rodman Pool in Putnam County and in the Canal right-of-way to private ownership and subject Plaintiff to innumerable lawsuits concerning the ownership of other rights-of-way land which were legally acquired by Plaintiff only for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal Project. Florida Statutes, $ 374.051, 374.071. Under the assurance furnished to Defendants, Secretary of Army and Corps of Engineers, Plaintiff will be liable for any damage caused by construction of the project which is either finished or unfinished. Defendants orders to halt construction and abandon the canal project are unlawful and in violation of the rights of Plaintiff and Plaintiff will suffer irreparable damage therefrom for which it has no adequate remedy at Law. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 7. The Defendant, Corps of Engineers, acting under the direction of the Defendant, Secretary of Army, is under a duty to complete construction of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal project in accordance with plans approved by Congress and subsequent appropriations thereto and by virtue of Defendant's agree ment with Plaintiff and Congress to construct the canal project in exchange for Plaintiff's promise and actual performance of providing necessary rights-ofway for construction, and Plaintiff's further promise to hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works. Public Law 77-675 (July 23, 1942, H.R. 6999); letter from Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers to Giles L. Evans, Jr., Manager of the Canal Authority, dated November 13, 1963; Certificate of Resolution, dated October 6, 1959, all attached hereto as Exhibit A. 8. The press release dated January 19, 1971, issued by the Honorable Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America (Copy attached hereto as Exhibit B), which the defendants have taken to be an order directing the Defendants herein to halt all construction of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal project is unconstitutional on its face and applied to Plaintiff. Neither the President nor anyone acting under his direction has any authority to override the will of Congress expressed in the project authorization and subsequent appropriation bills. Any action of the Defendants which is based on said press release or other order of the President is in direct violation of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 1; Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: Article IV, Section 3. Clause 2, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants' decision to halt all construction of and to abandon the Canal project is an illegal attempt to exercise lawmaking power, which the Constitution vests in Congress alone. 9. Realleging the allegations contained in paragraph 8, Plaintiff further alleges that the order issued by the Defendant. Lieutenant General Frederick J. Clarke, Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers, dated January 20, 1971, (copy attached hereto as Exhibit C) and directing the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers to halt all construction of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal project is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Plaintiff. None of the Defendants herein have any discretionary power to decide whether the Canal project will be built, or not built, and said Defendants have acted beyond their statutory powers, and in violation of the U.S. Constitution as alleged in paragraph 8. Cessation of construction and abandonment of the project will cause Plaintiff irreparable damage for which it has no adequate remedy at law. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 10. Congress has recognized, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, that each person should enjoy a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. 42 U.S.C.A., § 4331(c) [1970]. Pursuant to the same act, Congress has directed that .. "all agencies of the Federal Government shall . . . (c) include in every recommendation or report on . . . major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on—(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the mainte nance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Federal official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the appropriate Federal, State and local agencies, which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards, shall be made available to the President, the Council on Environmental Quality and to the public as provided by Section 552 of Title 5, and shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency review processes; The order halting construction of the Canal project is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of human environment (as alleged in paragraph 6) and was based on a recommendation made by the defendant Council of Environmental Quality to the President prior to January 20, 1971. Upon information and belief it is alleged that said recommendation was beyond the authority of the Council to make in that it did not include a detailed statement on (1) the environmental impact of the proposed action to halt construction and abandon the Canal project; (2) any adverse environmental effects which would not be avoided if the project was halted; (3) alternatives to the proposed action. and (4) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved if the proposed action should be implemented. Prior to making its recommendation to the President, Defendant, Council on Environmental Quality, did not consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal Agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in halting construction of the Canal proj ect, to-wit: the Corps of Engineers, and the author of the U.S. Geological Survey Report on the project. Defendant, Council on Environmental Quality, has further refused to make the required detailed statement of environmental impact caused by a construction halt available to Plaintiff or to the public as required by the N.E.P.A., 42 U.S.C.A., § 4332 (c) and 5 U.S.C., § 552. By virture of the foregoing, the recommendation to halt construction and abandon the project. Defendant, Council on Environmental Quality, has violated the rights of Plainti under the N.E.P.A., the Public Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), and the US Constitutional requirements of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth | Amendments, and has caused and is causing Plaintiff irreparable damage for which it has no adequate remedy at law. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Defendant, Secretary of the Army, is charged by statute with the duty to apply money appropriated for improvements of rivers and harbors in carrying on the various public works as may be most economical and advantageous to the Government. 33 U.S.C., § 622. By halting all construction on the Cross-Florida Barge Canal Project with the only purpose to delay its completion and with the intention of abandoning the project, Defendants, Secretary of the Army and Corps of Engineers, have breached their statutory duty and the duty owed to Plaintiff as local sponsor for the project. Such actions of Defendants will subject Plaintiff to suffer irreparable damage for which it has no adequate remedy at law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for an Order: 1. Declaring that the press release, taken by the Defendants to be an order, issued on January 19, 1971, by the President is illegal or constitutionally void. 2. Declaring any order of the President to halt construction of the CrossFlorida Barge Canal Project to be of no effect, illegal or constitutionally void. 3. Declaring that the Order to halt all construction of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal Project issued on January 20, 1971, by the Defendant, Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers, is illegal and constitutionally void. 4. Enjoining Defendants, their agents and employees from relying on or in any manner carrying out the press release order dated January 19, 1971, and the order dated January 20, 1971, referred to above. 5. Directing Defendants, Secretary of the Army, Chief of Engineers, and the District Engineers of the Jacksonville Corps of Engineers to resume all construction work on the Canal project which was in progress on January 19, 1971. 6. Directing Defendant, Council on Environmental Quality, to consult with and obtain the comments of all Federal Agencies which have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in its recommendation to halt construction, and abandon the Canal project. 7. Directing Defendant, Council on Environmental Quality, to make available to Plaintiff any statement on the environmental impact of its recommendation to halt and abandon the Canal project whether such detailed statement or statements were prepared before or after said recommendation was made. 8. Granting such other interlocutory relief to Plaintiff as may be necessary to prevent irreparable injury, pending final judgment herein. 9. Granting to Plaintiff the costs incurred in this action. 10. Granting such other and further relief as this Count may deem just and proper. DECKER, ELLIOTT & KALER, P. A. By RALPH E. ELLIOTT, Jr. ALLAN P. CLARK 815 American Heritage Life [PUBLIC LAW 675-77TH CONGRESS] [CHAPTER 520-2D SESSION] [H.R 6999] AN ACT To promote the national defense and to promtply facilitate and protect the transport of materials and supplies needful to the Military Establishment by authorizing the construction and operation of a pipe line and a navigable barge channel across Florida, and by deepening and enlarging the Intracoastal Waterway from its present eastern terminus to the vicinity of the Mexican border. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in order to promote the national defense and to promptly facilitate and protect the transport of materials and supplies needful to the Military Establishment, there is hereby authorized to be constructed under the direction of the Secretary of War and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers a high-level lock barge canal from the Saint Johns River across Florida to the Gulf of Mexico in accordance with the plans set forth in the letter of the Chief of Engineers dated June 15, 1942; and that there is also authorized the enlargement of the present Intracoastal waterway from the vicinity of Apalachee Bay to Corpus Christi, Texas, and its extension to the vicinity of the Mexican border so as to provide throughout the entire length of the canal a channel twelve feet deep and one hundred and twenty-five feet wide: Provided, That between Mobile, Alabama, and New Orleans, Louisiana, the project shall be modified in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in his report dated April 27, 1942, except that the annual payments to be made by the Government to the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans are not limited by this Act to the amount recommended by the Chief of Engineers but are left open to negotiations between the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans and the Chief of Engineers: Provided further, That the Chief of Engineers is authorized to expedite the utilization of the facilities herein above authorized by the employment of temporary structures and available materials, and within reasonable limits to vary, in his discretion, the above-prescribed dimensions wherever advisable: And provided further, That subject to the provisions of Public Law 197, Seventy-seventh Congress, there is authorized to be constructed one or more pipe lines, together with all necessary terminal facilities, for the transport of petroleum and its products from the vicinity of Port Saint Joe and other points to the Gulf Coast of Florida to the Saint Johns River, and a crude-oil pipe line from the Tinsley Oil Field in the vicinity of Yazoo, Mississippi, to Charleston, South Carolina, and/or Savannah, Georgia. SEC. 2. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $93,000,000 to carry out the provisions of this Act. Approved, July 23, 1942. |