DCS and Milanville, PA resident Cynthia Nash have filed suit in U.S. District Court seeking an injunction against the destruction of the historic Skinners Falls Bridge.

DCS brings this action to challenge the decision of Defendants (PennDOT, etc.) to reject the feasible and prudent alternative of rehabilitating the historic Bridge based on a dubious “emergency” situation, despite the fact that the regulations are clear: the situation does not warrant any exemption from federal environmental and historic preservation laws! The defendants’ decision was preceded by years of neglect of the Bridge, resulting in its deterioration.

Legal action is expensive. Please help us save this beloved historic landmark by donating on our website (put “Skinners Falls Bridge” in the Comment box) or to our GoFundMe fundraiser.

Download the DCS lawsuit as a pdf
See Exhibits supporting our Complaint here
Hear Radio Catskill interview with DCS Director Arrindell on the lawsuit
The introduction to the lawsuit follows:

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against further planning, acquisition of right-of-way, financing, contracting, or demolition by Defendants of the historic Skinners Falls-Milanville Bridge (“the Bridge”) which crosses the Delaware River between Damascus Township, Wayne County, PA and the hamlet of Skinners Falls in Cochecton, NY, as part of a federally-funded project for the emergency demolition of the Bridge, including the use of explosives to demolish the bridge trusses and the construction of a temporary causeway in the Delaware River to facilitate demolition of the Bridge (“the Project.”)
2. The Bridge is located within the federally administered area of the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River, which has been designated as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
3. Plaintiff Damascus Citizens for Sustainability, Inc. (“Damascus Citizens”) brings this action to challenge the decision of Defendants to reject the feasible and prudent alternative of rehabilitating the historic Bridge based on a pretextual “emergency” situation, despite the fact that Defendants’ regulations provide that the situation does not warrant any exemption from federal environmental and historic preservation laws. Defendants’ decision was preceded by years of neglect of the Bridge, resulting in its deterioration, and was based on the improper invocation of regulatory exceptions for “emergencies” to the otherwise required, detailed consideration of alternatives under: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (“Section 4(f)”), 49 S.C. § 303(c); 23 U.S.C. § 138(a); the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370d; and Section 106 and 110(k) of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), 54 U.S.C. §§ 306108; 306113; 36 C.F.R. Part 800. Defendants’ approval of the demolition and failure to undertake the necessary detailed review and evaluation of alternatives that would avoid or minimize harm to the historic Bridge violates Section 4(f), NEPA, and the NHPA. This approval and these failures to review and evaluate also violate Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Environmental Rights Amendment (“ERA”).