Public Interest Briefs

The Battle of the Century Coming to a Close

Negotiations Proceed in Century Freeway Litigation

On July 8, 1972, in response to a Center lawsuit, Federal District Judge Harry Pregerson issued an injunction temporarily halting construction of the Century Freeway, a 17-mile roadway leading from the Los Angeles Airport to the San Gabriel Freeway. Now, six years later, the Center’s complex negotiations with officials from all levels of government may produce a comprehensive settlement unique to this type of litigation–an agreement which fashions solutions not only to transportation problems, but also to the housing and employment needs of the communities through which the freeway stretches. The process of our slow six-year journey from courtroom confrontation to the proposed compromise demonstrates the role of public interest litigation in making a government bureaucracy more responsive to those it serves.

When the State broke ground for the Century Freeway in 1972 in South Central Los Angeles, it did so in violation of several laws. In 1969, Congress had passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), legislation which created a new area in public policymaking. Environmental considerations, as well as economic considerations relating to a proposed project, would be specifically examined during a project’s planning stages to ensure that all costs would be apparent to policymakers. The major goal of the Act was to improve and open up the decision making process at all levels. It obligates federal government agencies to describe publicly the environmental impact of a project and to propose ways of lessening any adverse impact.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was modeled after NEPA. It requires state and local government agencies to examine the environmental impact of its projects, to mitigate those negative effects, and to make their findings and recommendations public in an environmental impact report.

Yet, in planning for the Century Freeway, officials had moved ahead without analyzing the effects of their plans on air pollution and the overall transportation goals of the region. Although thousands of individuals displaced, no comprehensive plan had been prepared for relocating these people. No consideration was given to alternative means of moving people through and between those communities.

After the Center’s court victory, the state and federal defendants began to prepare the necessary environmental and housing reports. The Center and its clients, the NAACP, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, and several individuals living in the path of the freeway, viewed the litigation as an opportunity to create momentum for a new program for the Los Angeles area, one breaking with the tradition of the Los Angeles “freeway mentality.” Federal law gives some communities located in the path of the freeway the option of converting their allocated money into money for mass transit. The concurrence of state and local officials is required for such an exchange. Yet, not one government official agreed to take the lead in pressing for an exchange of those funds.

The only available options were either to attempt a compromise settlement or to oppose the lifting of the injunction through litigation. It became increasingly apparent that a continuation of the injunction would not result in a substantive use of the transit funds. The most likely result would be a continued state of limbo for the project.

(continued in full brief)