Article Written by: Larry Nettles, Vinson & Elkins
Several economic development organizations, including the Greater Fort Bend Economic Development Council, West Houston Association, and North Houston Association, successfully prevented a bad settlement in a lawsuit that could have stopped transportation improvements in the Houston metropolitan area. The national offices of the Environmental Defense Fund and Sierra Club, and two local environmental organizations, sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over EPA's approval of a "motor vehicle emissions budget" for the Houston-Galveston region. A motor vehicle emissions budget is the maximum amount of emissions that can be emitted by cars and trucks in a region that does not meet federal air quality standards.
The environmental plaintiffs claimed that the motor vehicle emissions budget approved by EPA for the Houston-Galveston region was too high and that a new much lower budget should be required. If the relief sought by the plaintiffs was granted, practically all road and highway construction in the entire 8-county region would have been halted for several years, resulting in the loss of many thousands of construction jobs, not to mention traffic grid-lock.
The environmental plaintiffs sued only the federal EPA, and no state or local defendants. When it became apparent that EPA was conducting settlement negotiations with the plaintiffs, the Greater Fort Bend Economic Development Council, the West Houston Association, and the North Houston
Association, hired Vinson & Elkins to file motions to intervene in the lawsuit to prevent a bad settlement. Vinson & Elkins was then asked by Harris County, Fort Bend County and other local governmental entities to take action to prevent a bad settlement. Settlement negotiations ensued. During the course of the negotiations, the plaintiffs realized that they no longer had a friendly lawsuit against the EPA and greatly reduced their demands. An agreement in principle was reached on May 10, 2001.
The terms of the final settlement are a vast improvement over the settlement terms originally proposed by the environmental plaintiffs. The new terms will allow continued work on road and highway improvements throughout the region while air emissions controls are implemented gradually over the next few years. This improvement is largely due to the pressure of the intervening organizations, the support of the organization's constituents, and the assistance of Congressional leaders such as Congressmen Delay, Brady, and Culberson.
The originally proposed settlement terms included a lower motor vehicle emissions budget (making it more difficult to add new road and transit projects), the halting of 270 road projects contained in the regional transportation improvement plan (including I-10 Katy Freeway, West Loop 610, I-45, U.S. 290, S.H. 146, Grand Parkway, Westpark Toll Road, and Fort Bend Parkway), the adoption of policies to encourage high density development, and the aggressive development of nine rail projects. In contrast, the current settlement terms do not require an unworkable emissions budget, halt specific road projects, require construction of plaintiff-selected rail projects, or impose any land use controls.
Despite successfully defending regional mobility in this lawsuit, threats to mobility remain. The environmental plaintiffs have discussed filing additional lawsuits. In response, Herb Appel of the Greater Fort Bend Economic Development Council, said that the development community will remain active in defending regional mobility interests, ensuring people's right to choose where they live and how they travel.
