Most people have never heard of a federal law called "NEPA." This law, and many state and local laws that are similar to it, requires the government to evaluate the environmental implications of its actions. It applies to instances in which there has been significant government involvement that may affect the environment.

These laws are important to all of us. Many government projects, such as roadway expansions, sewer projects, landfill expansions, airport improvements, have environmental consequences. It is important that the government provide a fair evaluation of what its projects will do to our neighborhoods.

Under these laws, projects with substantial environmental impacts require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study. Projects with lesser affects require either an environmental analysis, or a statement that the environment will not be affected at all by the action.

The idea is to ensure that government action does not have negative environmental consequences. And when government action causes environmental injury, these laws require an evaluation of that injury and a determination of whether the injury can be diminished.

Unfortunately, governments have a shameful history of attempting to ignore, or perhaps worse, pay only lip service, to these obligations. All to often, environmental evaluations are seen as something that stand in the way of progress, be it real progress, or some kind of deal making. And the process is not often enough taken seriously.

Courts do not uniformly respond to such failures. Some Courts seem to care as little as do some governments. And some care a lot.

The recent New York State case of "In the Matter of New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning v. Peter Vallone, et al." was a case where the Court really cared. It set aside significant city-wide lead abatement legislation because the legally required environmental impact study had not been performed. The case shows courage and a willingness to take a hard stand where necessary. It reiterates the important message that governments must take these obligations seriously.

As the Court observed, the dangers of exposure to lead-based paint, especially to young children, are well documented and pose a serious public health problem. "Lead is a poison that affects virtually every system in the body" and is particularly harmful to brain and nervous system development. Even low levels of blood lead have been linked to diminished intelligence, decreased stature or growth and hearing loss.

In 1982, New York City adopted Local Law 1, the City's comprehensive attempt to define owner obligations for the abatement of existing interior lead paint conditions. The statute created a presumption that peeling paint in any multiple dwelling erected prior to January 1, 1960 where a child six or younger resided constituted lead-based paint for abatement purposes.

Beginning in 1985, a group of public interest groups commenced a lawsuit to compel the City to comply with its obligations under Local Law 1. The litigation progressed over many years and the courts interpreted Local Law 1 as requiring total abatement of lead-based paint, or a "lead-free" environment, regardless of the condition of the paint or its subsurface.

Local Law 38 was a second attempt to address this issue in New York. While the approach to the lead paint issue was more refined, there were still many critics on every side of this issue that did not like the law. They either believed it either did not go far enough, or that it went tot far.

New York has an environmental impact analysis law called "the Environmental Quality Review Act "(SEQRA). When Local Law 38 was adopted, the City made a finding that the law would have no detrimental environmental impact. That decision resulted in a lawsuit.

The Court concluded that New York did not do its job when it simply concluded that the new lead law would have no environmental impact. The Court understood that every lead removal project has environmental impacts, and that the law's alleged failure to properly address the issue of lead dust might in and of itself create an environmental issue.

So the new lead law was found to be invalid. Not because of anything found in the law itself, but because New York paid no more than lip service to its obligation to conduct an environmental impact evaluation.

Is this too harsh of a result? Hardly. These laws must be given teeth if they are to mean anything at all. This Court simply did its job. And I hope every government is paying attention.

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.