The court trial over the Legacy Highway wrapped up on Friday. Now, both sides are awaiting the judge's decision, which he says he will issue at a later date.
Thursday, the Highway came under fire as the court battle began.
Opponents of the 14 mile highway unleashed their legal attack in federal court.
News Specialist John Daley was there
and has details.
Lawyers for opponents of Legacy let loose a barrage of arguments about why the project should be stopped.
They say state road planners have ignored alternatives to the road and significantly downplayed the highway's impact on air quality, wetlands, traffic congestion, and overall quality of life.
Traffic through Davis County is often bad, and will be worse in 20 years.
But is a nearly half billion dollar road that cuts through some of the world's most valuable wetlands the right solution?
Boiled down to its barest essentials
that's the question, as the Legacy Highway case rumbles into federal court.
Attorneys come armed with painstakingly-researched arguments.
One point central to the opponent's case is that UDOT failed to consider the less damaging and less expensive alternative routes, including the old Denver Rio Grande rail line, which runs east of the current alignment and would take out far fewer acres of wetlands.
Marc Heileson/Sierra Club: "WE'VE SAID FOR THE LAST THREE TO FOUR YEARS THAT A TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE SHOULD BE STUDIED ALONG WITH THE FREEWAY ALTERNATIVES. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. AND AS WE SIT HERE ON THIS RAILROAD TRACK, NOT EVEN THE LEAST DAMAGING ROAD ALTERNATIVES WERE STUDIED."
In court, opponents argue the road violates a number of federal rules.
That it'll be far more polluting to our air, more damaging to wetlands, and cause more congestion than UDOT says.
What's more, they say, state road builders didn't fully consider mass transit alternatives.
But state and federal agencies disagree.
Byron Parker/Legacy Hwy Project Director: "WE JUST FEEL LIKE WE'VE STUDIED THE DETAILS, WE'VE COME TO A GOOD SOLUTION FOR THE PROJECT."
Proponents say the plan had been approved by federal agency decision-makers, that it saves significant wetlands in a nature preserve, and that it'll meet the needs of our staggering growth.
Both sides share one opinion--they see this as potentially a landmark case.
Most likely Judge Bruce Jenkins won't decide Thursday. He'll issue a ruling later.
But when he does rule, it'll be a monumental decision for Utah.
No doubt, there's a lot on the line here.
