Thursday, February 06, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

Too little too late?

Sierra Club is suing to stop the U.S. 95 widening but critic says it should have acted sooner

By Larry Wills

Imagine Barbara Roth's surprise when she heard the Sierra Club had hauled the Federal Highway Administration to court last week over the widening of U.S. 95.

Roth and others in the Charleston Heights neighborhood had been openly frustrated after the Sierra Club waited years to step up to the plate. And now construction is well under way to widen the highway from six to 10 lanes from the Spaghetti Bowl to Rainbow Boulevard.

Roth, who with others had worked since 1997 to stop the project on the grounds that it would wreck older neighborhoods and cause health hazards, eventually resigned from the club.

"I quit when they decided not to sue," Roth says. "They were afraid some politician would be against them on every issue they would bring up."

Some of the damage to neighborhoods has already been done. More than 200 homes, along with a school and scores of businesses, face the wrecking ball. In the Twin Lakes area, houses have been razed, residents relocated and the remainder of the homes face a long sound wall. One school already has been relocated.

Jane Feldman, Sierra Club conservation chair, says it took time to put the case together and she blamed the delay on gathering the legal details.

But that doesn't square with Roth's recollection. A tireless researcher, she delved into environmental and highway laws and wrote endless letters to entities such as the Environmental Protection Agency. She believes the Sierra Club had the ammunition to file suit years before it did, on grounds of noise and air quality degradation, which are prohibited under federal law.

Roth accused highway planners of underestimating population growth in the northwest valley so that pollution data would be lower and of ignoring the phenomenon of "induced travel," in which new roads attract greater numbers of motorists.

She also notes that the EPA at one point was sharply critical of the project. In July 1999, Deanna Weiman, of EPA's cross media division, wrote: "We object to immediate implementation without major improvements in transportation capacity, air quality or noise, without a clear, strong commitment to improved transit options."

After that letter, the EPA played no apparent role in the highway planning process. "The EPA decided against it and for some reason changed their minds," Roth says. "I felt like I was utterly defeated when the Federal Highway Administration took over. They never saw a highway they didn't like."

Roth also points to Clark County's continuous noncompliance with air quality rules as yet another reason for not widening the highway.

"We have never been out of violation since the standards were created," she says. "The Sierra Club was with me then, but time lagged on and they didn't put their lawsuit in. We tried to get a pro bono attorney in Las Vegas, but couldn't get one."

At last week's court hearing, Sierra Club attorney Joanne Spalding told U.S. District Judge Philip Pro that the filing came after new data showed multi-lane expressways were making nearby residents sick.

"A supplemental [environmental impact statement] was asked for when new information became available," she told the judge. "Studies in Denver and L.A. show higher cancer rates along those roads."

Spalding contends the 10-lane portion of the highway would cause the most environmental damage, but the department didn't believe those studies were applicable to Las Vegas.

"So we found experts to look at the impact of widening U.S. 95 and basically do the job the federal agency refused to do," she told the judge.

Spalding also insisted that a delay in filing is not cause for dismissal. The club wants a study to see if disease rates cataloged along wide freeways in Denver, Atlanta and Los Angeles could have comparable effects in Southern Nevada. Children living along highways with high traffic densities encountered increased rates of leukemia, other childhood cancers and asthma. Long-term exposure to pollution also has been linked to heart disease among adults.

Feldman says people still living next to U.S. 95 are at risk. "The highway itself is a particular concern because it is located next to two elementary schools, a high school, two community centers, a day care facility, 27 apartment buildings and 380 single-family residences," she says.

But David Ortez, a government attorney, argued that the suit should be dismissed. He told Pro that a final decision on the project was made in January 2000 and that the Sierra Club waited too long to act. "It was more than two years before they filed their complaint," he said.

He also said it's too late to stop the $300 million highway improvement project, especially since $125 million of that money has already been spent. "It's being built, people have been relocated," he said.

Pro indicated that, within two weeks, he may order the government to produce the 15,000-page federal record on the project if he accepts Ortez's motion to dismiss the project. Delivering that document could take another six weeks.

But it's unlikely any ruling will actually stop the project. And no matter how Pro rules, the case may go to appeal in the the 9th U.S. Circuit Court in San Francisco.

"I love those people," Roth says. "They lean toward environmentalists. California is cleaning up its own air."

But Roth believes the suit won't affect the U.S. 95 project or the lives of those living nearby, especially if an appeal takes a year longer. The project is slated to be complete in 2006.

"The neighborhoods most adversely affected are old core neighborhoods that would benefit least from the highway proposal," she says. "The houses are gone. They've ruined that."