With a unanimous decision, environmental impact reviews are now limited to the project under consideration. Ripple effects on theoretical future projects are excluded. This decision will help infrastructure projects get completed.
In an 8-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a D.C. Circuit ruling that had blocked construction of a new 88-mile freight railroad line, clarifying the scope of impacts that federal agencies must consider under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Court’s majority opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County is a sharp rebuke to what the Court describes as the aggressive interference by certain federal lower courts with the exercise of agency discretion in determining the scope of a NEPA review, a practice the Court found contrary to the intent of NEPA as a “purely procedural statute” designed to assist in agency decision making…
Agencies must take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of their actions in the context of projects under consideration, but they are not required to assess indirect effects of separate federal, state, or private projects, even if the action under review might facilitate those projects…
The decision is a win for project sponsors–including developers of infrastructure, housing, renewable energy, and industrial facilities–because it narrows the circumstances under which federal agencies must evaluate indirect adverse impacts of a project undergoing NEPA review.
"a sharp rebuke to what the Court describes as the aggressive interference by certain federal lower courts " Thank goodness a circuit court got its hand slapped. Circuit courts like to shut down projects. For some interesting and comical reading, one might find a 9th circuit court decision from 15 or 20 years ago, regarding salvage timber harvest after the School Fire in northeast Oregon. In the decision, the 9th circuit court used 4 pages to describe what a dead tree was. The final decision was that a dead tree was a tree that was not alive. It reads like a comedy skit. Off topic, all these documents refer to “impacts”. Many years ago some -ologist decided to use the word “impacts” instead of the word “effects”, I guess so he or she could sound more important. The change has stuck ever since. It means effects. Effects are results from an action. Impacts are something you do with a hammer.
Court decisions of the 1960s into the 1970s establishing enormous environmental impact reports as a crux element in of public policymaking were and are a disaster. They are one part of our larger failure to simply take full civic responsibility for the making of decisions that require knowledge and prudence.
The stupidity was understandable as the court basically determined that the “deciders” lacked knowledge and prudence…..
Nope, I am myself an environmentalist and a surfer mountaineer California Boy
who has spent a lot of time in very Red parts of the country, and the stories about California are overstated and dated.
And environmentalist concerns need to be addressed directly, and not by bureaucratic overloads. You elect politicians who approve disastrous developments then you get the consequences. Other politicians need to point out the danger. If the electorate does not comprehent, well, we are screwed.
Yes, that makes liberal education all the more important, and that is too tedious to discuss here.
So if someone wants to push through a 6 lane highway through farmland, we only have to evaluate the effect of the highway on the farmland, not what’s the 6 lane highway will bring in terms of other development, factories, pollution, population, political realignment, costs, and all the other downstream effects.
Should make things simple: “A highway is a highway. Objections overruled.”
Pretty much correct, but the effects from the highway may get analyzed in great depth…wildlife corridors (especially if migratory birds tend to stop over on that land), spread of noxious weeds from cars, hydrology concerns, etc. And some benefit has to be shown, i.e., the farmer will be able to move his or her product to market safer and more efficiently