As anticipated, the Administration released their revised version of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This has been a long-sought-after plumb for the oilmen, and really, they have been polishing up for this moment for 40 years.
The inexorable process of eviscerating NEPA began in August of 2018 when Whitehouse Council on Environmental Quality filed a “20 questions” document to get input on how stakeholders interface with NEPA. Then in January of this year they supposedly synthesized all of the stakeholder comments and issued their proposed revisions for public review.
As expected, after our submitting a 36 page critique of the proposed revisions, there appears to be no evidence that the CEQ even read it. They are barging ahead with what they really want to do; kill NEPA under the rubric of “streamlining.”
So what are the low points? NEPA is the guiding document that facilitates the application of all other environmental regulations. It mandates that when large projects are proposed – like building a dam, pipeline, or freeway, or broad activities are proposed, such as an offshore naval training exercise, or a seismic airgun survey, that the proposal needs to be reviewed in light of environmental and socio-economic impacts. It allows the public and other stakeholders an opportunity to chime in and express our concerns informed by science, and enforced by environmental law.
They really don’t want the public to get in the way of their industrial plans, so the revisions really impair public comments with such ‘useful provisions’ as only allowing comments to be actionable if made within the comment time window – typically 30 days. So if it is later found that a project happens to destroy riparian habitat, or maim marine mammals in higher than anticipated numbers, and a cautionary comment was not made anticipating the damage or maiming within the comment period, the action can’t be litigated. Great idea!
Another provision is to eliminate provisions for consideration of “cumulative impacts.” This is just a plain and simple exclusion of considering any project’s contribution to climate change. So it puts building freeways and airports on equal footing with building high-speed rail, for example, or building oil pipelines on equal footing with building electrical power distribution.
If you want to drill down into the problems, you can read our critique, but what I find most alarming is that buried in the revisions is a strategy to rebuild US transportation infrastructure that will lock us in to fossil fuel for the next 30 years.
Fortunately our legal colleagues in organizations like the Southern Environmental Law Center, Earth Justice, and NRDC (among others) are girding their loins to litigate. Hopefully the courts they work in aren’t stuffed with fossil-fueled judges.
It is also possible that the incoming administration can roll back the changes. There is a lot at stake in the next national election. Please show up and vote.
Can this be reversed?
Hello Kelly,
This remains in litigation at the moment, but the act was written ~48 years ago, and while the re-wording according to the current revisions are evil, just returning to the original wording would not be the best solution. And given that industry now understands the impacts of the legislation, navigating useful replacement text will be a challenge.
Michael
It can be reversed, but after 50 years, it could use some rewriting. Fortunately this can be done in the agency, without Congressional approval.