A lawsuit by environmental groups over proposed Interstate 11 in southern Arizona continues after a federal district judge dismissed arguments as federal officials tried to dismiss some of the challenges last week. is what happened.

Last April, four Tucson-based environmental groups — the Sonoran Desert Conservation Coalition, the Center for Biodiversity, the Friends of the Ironwood Forest, and the Tucson Audubon Society — sued the Federal Highway Administration for failing to comply with the law. caused Environmental Policy Act – when choosing a 280-mile corridor for the proposed I-11 route.

The group claims the proposed highway will cut through the “primordial desert” of the Abra Valley west of Tucson. Federal officials said there was no money allocated for building the interstate highway, it would not take many years, and the plans were still preliminary.

Federal agencies issued decisions to lay the foundation for future highways while deferring environmental reviews of two potential routes through Pima County, including the “West Option” and “East Option.” Environmental groups argued that the “western option” would cause “the most noticeable impact on wildlife and public lands.” And by continuing to develop the new north-south highway, officials intended to “flip the cart before the horse,” they said.

The new interstate will begin in Nogales, Arizona, pass through Santa Cruz, Pima, Pinal, Maricopa, and Yavapai counties and end in Wickenburg, about 80 miles northwest of downtown Phoenix. Interstate 11’s “preferred” corridor bypasses Tucson and runs west from Sahuarita to Saguaro National Park, Ironwood Forest National Monument, Sonoran Desert National Monument, and other largely pristine areas near nature reserves. It will open up the desert. Part of the land of the Tohono O’Dum Nation.

“North of Tucson, this highway will run alongside the Sonoran Desert National Monument, threatening its wilderness and recreation, disrupting wildlife corridors, and threatening Tucson shovelnose snake habitat.” writes the Center for Biodiversity. However, the FHWA “approved the highway despite deferring an environmental review or deciding between two route options for Pima County.”

This “approve now, consider later approach” violated federal law, the center argued.

The group said the FHWA has postponed a final decision on how the new highway will pass through Pima County, “moving the entire I-11 project forward before we fully understand the environmental impact of any one highway.” He argued that the decision to The most controversial aspect of the project is the route through Pima County roughly between Sahuarita and Marana, Arizona. ”

The decision follows NEPA’s mandate that “Federal agencies analyze the environmental impacts of their actions and disclose them to the public and decision makers in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before implementing their actions.” Violation.

For the past 25 years, the Arizona Department of Transportation has sought to build a new “high-capacity, high-priority north-south” highway linking Canada and Mexico through the U.S. market and western United States. Another section may be built in Nevada. It may eventually connect Nogales to Las Vegas via Interstate 40 and the Mike O’Callaghan Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge over the Colorado River.

The proposed interstate highway would “improve Arizona’s access to regional and international markets and create new opportunities for travel, mobility, trade, commerce, increased employment, and enhanced economic competitiveness.” It is conceived as an open multi-purpose corridor,” ADOT said.

The agency initiated a “first” environmental study in 2016, with the final first study completed in July 2021. The agency said it has held 18 public meetings and public hearings over the past five years “to inform the community about the investigation and to encourage participation.” Listen to their feedback with them and document their questions and comments in the public record. ”

In response, federal prosecutors argued that the federal government complied with the law and that additional environmental reviews would be conducted when the State Highway 11 project was funded. They then asked U.S. District Judge John C. Hinderaker to dismiss the motion.

But last week, Mr. Hindelaker rejected the allegations and allowed the project to proceed.

Four environmental groups praised Hindelakar’s decision, calling it “good news” for public lands.

“This is good news for Arizona’s public lands and wildlife, and for the state’s climate and water future,” said Wendy Park, senior attorney at the Center for Biodiversity. “Our precious desert wilderness should be off-limits to destruction of this magnitude in order to give animals like desert tortoises a fighting chance to survive climate change.”

Environmental groups say the I-11 program “destroys the pristine Sonoran Desert, damages protected public lands, harms endangered desert tortoises and other wildlife, It exacerbates air pollution and the water crisis on the Colorado River.” Additionally, the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Reclamation Service, and Arizona Game and Fish Service “reiterate their concern that interstate roads will cause lasting and significant damage to wildlife populations and public lands.” I do,” he added.

“We commend Judge Hinderaker’s ruling in recognizing the need to publicly reconsider the I-11 plan before irreversible choices are made,” said Tucson Audubon Association Conservation Advocacy Director. said David Robinson. “The public has the right to challenge the government’s proposal to build this high-impact project on some of Arizona’s most valuable and endangered wilderness. This decision upholds that right.”

“The Federal Highway Administration decided long ago where to put the highway,” said Carolyn Campbell of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Coalition. “The impact and other federal policies should be blamed.” “The judge has ruled this bluntly and correctly, and our case will all go forward.”

The group noted that the FHWA released a record of its decision in November 2021 to select a 2,000-foot-wide corridor for I-11 development, but withheld a decision on whether to select the “western option.” , environmental groups argued. “impacting the ecologically important desert areas of the Abra and Altar Valleys” or using or extending existing highways, including Interstate 19 and Interstate 10 in and around Tucson “Eastern Option” to do.

“Whether the western or eastern option is chosen, the majority of the project will traverse the fragile Sonoran Desert, and will traverse critical public lands, watersheds, air quality and climate, sensitive wildlife and their It threatens habitat, scenic and tranquil landscapes, dark skies, and recreation,” the group said.

FHWA attorneys responded by August that the project was still unfunded and that the current environmental analysis was “a process of many stages in which the agency considers the potential impacts of the proposed facility.” The environmental group’s lawsuit should be dismissed because it represents one of the first stages of our . ”

“Plaintiffs are currently challenging, among other things, highway construction projects that are largely underfunded,” said U.S. Assistant Attorney Todd Kim. Kim said a preliminary analysis under the section of law known as Section 4(f) could not begin at the design stage, and the Arizona Department of Transportation should consider the environmental impacts of new plans under NEPA or Section 4(f). It added that it was not possible to resume the analysis of ) until the agency “secures funding for that purpose, it has not occurred in the Pima County Western Option segment or the Eastern Option segment. I am assuming you have selected the option.”

Even assuming ADOT completes project review and secures construction funding, the State Transportation Board will still need to decide whether the new I-11 corridor is a priority in its five-year construction plan. There are other competing projects that ADOT “may not be able to prioritize unilaterally,” Kim wrote.

FHWA Arizona Division Manager Carla Petty wrote: “It is not enough for ADOT to complete the programming process in order to proceed with the final design and construction of any section of highway using federal highway funds.” “But before that funding is provided, more in-depth site-specific secondary research must also be performed on the potential environmental impacts caused by a particular arrangement.”

In the process, ADOT will “identify, investigate, and select alignments other than the chosen corridor alternatives, if necessary, to avoid or mitigate impacts or to better meet the facility’s objectives and needs.” You can,” she wrote.

Hindelaker criticized the decision as “against regulatory requirements.” He also wrote that “several agencies objected” during the comment period on the plan, challenging the FHWA’s Section 4(f) decision “to no avail. This litigation continued.” .

Hinderaker wrote that “it would be impractical for a court to reconsider” the FHWA’s decision “after so much time, effort and resources have been expended” in the planning stages of the second phase.

“FHWA was unable to identify additional information relevant to a Section 4(f) Phase 1 determination that may arise during Phase 4(f) Phase 2,” he said. If the court does not hear plaintiffs’ Section 4(f) challenge now, it will lose its chance to complete the case.” The meaningful and timely Section 4(f) process will fade away like you missed the exit in your rearview mirror. ”

I-11 will cause ‘unsustainable increase in water demand’

The Center for Biodiversity has been very critical of the proposed interstate highway, saying that I-11 would promote “dramatic population growth and unsustainable increases in water demand” in the region, and the state’s It warns that it will accelerate the water crisis.in them reportEntitled ‘Deadpool Highway’, the environmental group used estimates of population and water use used by authorities to justify the 48-mile north-south highway to estimate its potential impact. Estimated.

The center said population growth “could jump more than 10-fold from about 220,500 to more than 2.8 million, increasing Arizona’s population by a third,” thereby increasing water use. He argued that the amount would increase tenfold in seven years and would consume a comparable amount of water. It extends from the Colorado River to almost all of Arizona.

The center said in a report that Phoenix’s West Valley “does not have enough water to support the planned development of Interstate 11.” According to a recent report by the Arizona Department of Water Resources, the West Valley, which includes the city of Buckeye, is projected to be “4.4 million acre-feet short of projected growth needs based on future pumping and recharge estimates.” It is said that

“The authorities cannot approve new development here because state law requires a 100-year reliable water supply in the area,” the group said. “Groundwater is also over-allocated in the state, claiming the right to use more water than there are cities, farms, developers and other entities,” the center said. “As a result, groundwater extraction is outstripping recharge, and wells and water supplies for agriculture and desert cities are being depleted.”

“Despite years of research, officials wonder if there’s enough water to justify this multi-billion dollar highway,” said Russ McSpadden, a Southwestern conservationist at the center. have not been analyzed,” he said. “This could be a huge waste of public money and it would be foolish to go ahead with it. Instead, Arizona will promote smart growth, get rid of polluting highways and promote green transportation. should.”