Latest news with #NationalEnvironmentalPolicyActof1969
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court changes the game on federal environmental reviews
Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions – until now. In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game. Whether the effects are good or bad depends on the viewer's perspective. Either way, there is a new interpretation in place for the law that is the centerpiece of the debate about permitting – the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, known as NEPA. NEPA requires federal agencies to document and describe the environmental effects of any proposed action, including construction of oil pipelines, renewable energy and other infrastructure projects. Only after completing that work can the agency make a final decision to approve or deny the project. These reports must evaluate direct effects, such as the destruction of habitat to make way for a new highway, and indirect effects, such as the air pollution from cars using the highway after it is built. Decades of litigation about the scope of indirect effects have widened the required evaluation. As I explain it to my students, that logical and legal progression is reminiscent of the popular children's book 'If You Give a Mouse a Cookie,' in which granting a request for a cookie triggers a seemingly endless series of further requests – for a glass of milk, a napkin and so on. For the highway example, the arguments went, even if the agency properly assessed the pollution from the cars, it also had to consider the new subdivisions, malls and jobs the new highway foreseeably could induce. The challenge for federal agencies was knowing how much of that potentially limitless series of indirect effects courts would require them to evaluate. In recent litigation, the question in particular has been how broad a range of effects on and from climate change could be linked to any one specific project and therefore require evaluation. With the court's ruling, federal agencies' days of uncertainty are over. On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court – minus Justice Neil Gorsuch, who had recused himself – decided the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the first major NEPA dispute before the court in 20 years. At issue was an 85-mile rail line a group of developers proposed to build in Utah to connect oil wells to the interstate rail network and from there transport waxy crude oil to refineries in Louisiana, Texas and elsewhere. The federal Surface Transportation Board reviewed the environmental effects and approved the required license in 2021. The report was 637 pages long, with more than 3,000 pages of appendices containing additional information. It acknowledged but did not give a detailed assessment of the indirect 'upstream' effects of constructing the rail line – such as spurring new oil drilling – and the indirect 'downstream' effects of the ultimate use of the waxy oil in places as far flung as Louisiana. In February 2022, Eagle County, Colorado, through which trains coming from the new railway would pass, along with the Center for Biological Diversity appealed that decision in federal court, arguing that the board had failed to properly explain why it did not assess those effects. Therefore, the county argued, the report was incomplete and the board license should be vacated. In August 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed and held that the agency had failed to adequately explain why it could not employ 'some degree of forecasting' to identify those impacts and that the board could prevent those effects by exercising its authority to deny the license. The railway developers appealed to the Supreme Court, asking whether NEPA requires a federal agency to look beyond the action being proposed to evalutate indirect effects outside its own jurisdiction. Writing for a five-justice majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered a ringing, table-pounding lecture about courts run amok. Kavanaugh did not stop to provide specific support for each admonition, describing NEPA as a 'legislative acorn' that has 'grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development.' He bemoaned the 'delay upon delay' NEPA imposes on projects as so complicated that it bordered 'on the Kafkaesque.' In his view, 'NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents.' He called for 'a course correction … to bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with the statutory text and common sense.' His opinion reset the course in three ways. First, despite the Supreme Court having recently reduced the deference courts must give to federal agency decisions in other contexts, Kavanaugh wrote that courts should give agencies strong deference when reviewing an agency's NEPA effects analyses. Because these assessments are 'fact-dependent, context-specific, and policy-laden choices about the depth and breadth of its inquiry … (c)ourts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness.' Second, Kavanaugh crafted a new rule saying that the review of one project did not need to consider the potential indirect effects of other related projects it could foreseeably induce, such as the rail line encouraging more drilling for oil. This limitation is especially relevant, Kavanaugh emphasized, when the effects are from projects over which the reviewing agency does not have jurisdiction. That applied in this case, because the board does not regulate oil wells or oil drilling. And third, Kavanaugh created something like a 'no harm – no foul' rule, under which 'even if an (environmental impact statement) falls short in some respects, that deficiency may not necessarily require a court to vacate the agency's ultimate approval of a project.' The strong implication is that courts should not overturn an agency decision unless its NEPA assessment has a serious flaw. The upshot for the project at hand was that the Supreme Court deferred to the board's decision that it could not reliably predict the rail line's effects on oil drilling or use of the oil transported. And the fact that the agency had no regulatory power over those separate issues reinforced the idea that those concerns were outside the scope of the board's required review. Although Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that she would have reached the same end result and upheld the agency permit, her proposed test is far narrower. By her reading, the federal law creating the Surface Transportation Board restricted it from considering the broader indirect effects of the rail line. But her finding would be relevant only for any federal agencies whose governing statutes were similarly restrictive. By contrast, Kavanaugh's 'course correction' applies to judicial review of NEPA findings for all federal agencies. Though the full effects remain to be seen, this decision significantly changes the legal landscape of environmental reviews of major projects. Agencies will have more latitude to shorten the causal chain of indirect effects they consider – and to exclude them entirely if they flow from separate projects beyond the agency's regulatory control. Now, for example, if a federal agency is considering an application to build a new natural gas power plant, the review must still include its direct greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on the climate. But emissions that could result from additional gas extraction and transportation projects to fuel the power plant, and any climate effects from whatever the produced electricity is used for, are now clearly outside the agency's required review. And if the agency voluntarily decided to consider any of those effects, courts would have to defer to its analysis, and any minor deficiencies would be inconsequential. That is a far cry from how the legal structure around the National Environmental Policy Act has worked for decades. For lawyers, industry, advocacy groups and the courts, environmental review after the Eagle County decision is not just a new ballgame; it is a new sport. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: J.B. Ruhl, Vanderbilt University Read more: Why the federal government must act cautiously on fast-tracking project approvals Will faster federal reviews speed up the clean energy shift? Two legal scholars explain what the National Environmental Policy Act does and doesn't do Supreme Court could narrow the scope of federal environmental reviews, with less consideration of how projects would contribute to climate change J.B. Ruhl does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court limits environmental impact studies, expediting infrastructure projects
The Supreme Court on Thursday put new limits on the scope of federally mandated environmental impact statements for major transportation and energy projects, clearing the way for a proposed rail line linking Utah and Colorado and for more expeditious approvals of similar construction programs nationwide. The decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County was 8-0. (Justice Neil Gorsuch recused from the case but did not explain his decision.) The dispute, the first of its kind in 20 years to reach the court, focused on the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires federal agencies to study the significant environmental effects of a project and identify alternatives to mitigate any harms. The law, known as NEPA, has been the basis of major litigation by groups opposed to particular projects, which frequently sue to block construction by alleging that the impact study was incomplete or inaccurate. Industry groups have long complained about years, even decades, of costly delays to get projects completed. MORE: Trump asks Supreme Court to remove judge-ordered restrictions on 3rd-country deportations Acknowledging those concerns, Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing for the majority said use of NEPA to stymie energy and infrastructure programs has gotten out of hand and needs to be curtailed. "A 1970 legislative acorn has grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development under the guise of just a little more process," Kavanaugh wrote. "A course correction of sorts is appropriate to bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with the statutory text and common sense. " Kavanaugh said the law imposed merely a "modest procedural requirement," related only to the project at hand, not a mandatory study of possible upstream or downstream impacts far afield from actual construction. The proposed 88-mile railway at the heart of the case, linking the oil-rich Uinta Basin of Utah with the national rail network in Colorado, has undergone years of environmental study. Its impact statement exceeds 3,600 pages of analysis. Environmental groups challenged the study, however, saying it failed to consider secondary impacts of exporting millions of gallons of oil to refineries along the Gulf, such as the risk of oil spills in the Colorado River, pollution in the Gulf and greenhouse gas contributions to climate change. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed. MORE: Supreme Court blocks Oklahoma from launching taxpayer-funded religious charter school The groups told the Supreme Court that approving the railway could also mean heightened risk of oil spills, train spark-induced wildfires and enhanced greenhouse gas emissions nationwide. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who opposes the railway project, lamented the high court decision in a statement, saying the court had approved a "risky scheme to transport waxy crude oil along the Colorado River, right alongside our most critical water resource and posing major risks to Colorado's Western Slope communities." The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, which supports the railway, said those downstream risks are too far afield and beyond the scope of the law and that the project has fallen victim of bureaucratic red tape. "The effects from a separate project may be factually foreseeable, but that does not mean that those effects are relevant to the agency's decision making process or that it is reasonable to hold the agency responsible for those effects," Kavanaugh wrote. "In those circumstances, the causal chain is too attenuated." The opinion said judges should show "deference" to the agency officials preparing the environmental impact statement. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred with the judgment but wrote separately to explain their reasoning. MORE: Chief Justice John Roberts makes rare public appearance, defends judicial independence Proponents of the rail line, who have pitched it as an economic boon for the country, say it will help extract hundreds of thousands of gallons of waxy crude oil and drive down energy prices for consumers. "The Supreme Court has issued an important corrective to the current judicial approach to the National Environmental Policy Act," said University of Minnesota Law School professor James Coleman, who specializes in energy and transportation law, "demanding more deference from courts for the agencies performing judicial review and explaining why it is inappropriate to demand agencies to consider the upstream and downstream effects of energy transport projects." Supreme Court limits environmental impact studies, expediting infrastructure projects originally appeared on
29-05-2025
- Politics
Supreme Court limits environmental impact studies, expediting infrastructure projects
The Supreme Court on Thursday put new limits on the scope of federally mandated environmental impact statements for major transportation and energy projects, clearing the way for a proposed rail line linking Utah and Colorado and for more expeditious approvals of similar construction programs nationwide. The decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County was 8-0. (Justice Neil Gorsuch recused from the case but did not explain his decision.) The dispute, the first of its kind in 20 years to reach the court, focused on the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires federal agencies to study the significant environmental effects of a project and identify alternatives to mitigate any harms. The law, known as NEPA, has been the basis of major litigation by groups opposed to particular projects, which frequently sue to block construction by alleging that the impact study was incomplete or inaccurate. Industry groups have long complained about years, even decades, of costly delays to get projects completed. Acknowledging those concerns, Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing for the majority said use of NEPA to stymie energy and infrastructure programs has gotten out of hand and needs to be curtailed. "A 1970 legislative acorn has grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development under the guise of just a little more process," Kavanaugh wrote. "A course correction of sorts is appropriate to bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with the statutory text and common sense. " Kavanaugh said the law imposed merely a "modest procedural requirement," related only to the project at hand, not a mandatory study of possible upstream or downstream impacts far afield from actual construction. The proposed 88-mile railway at the heart of the case, linking the oil-rich Uinta Basin of Utah with the national rail network in Colorado, has undergone years of environmental study. Its impact statement exceeds 3,600 pages of analysis. Environmental groups challenged the study, however, saying it failed to consider secondary impacts of exporting millions of gallons of oil to refineries along the Gulf, such as the risk of oil spills in the Colorado River, pollution in the Gulf and greenhouse gas contributions to climate change. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed. The groups told the Supreme Court that approving the railway could also mean heightened risk of oil spills, train spark-induced wildfires and enhanced greenhouse gas emissions nationwide. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who opposes the railway project, lamented the high court decision in a statement, saying the court had approved a "risky scheme to transport waxy crude oil along the Colorado River, right alongside our most critical water resource and posing major risks to Colorado's Western Slope communities." The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, which supports the railway, said those downstream risks are too far afield and beyond the scope of the law and that the project has fallen victim of bureaucratic red tape. "The effects from a separate project may be factually foreseeable, but that does not mean that those effects are relevant to the agency's decision making process or that it is reasonable to hold the agency responsible for those effects," Kavanaugh wrote. "In those circumstances, the causal chain is too attenuated." The opinion said judges should show "deference" to the agency officials preparing the environmental impact statement. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred with the judgment but wrote separately to explain their reasoning. Proponents of the rail line, who have pitched it as an economic boon for the country, say it will help extract hundreds of thousands of gallons of waxy crude oil and drive down energy prices for consumers. "The Supreme Court has issued an important corrective to the current judicial approach to the National Environmental Policy Act," said University of Minnesota Law School professor James Coleman, who specializes in energy and transportation law, "demanding more deference from courts for the agencies performing judicial review and explaining why it is inappropriate to demand agencies to consider the upstream and downstream effects of energy transport projects."
Yahoo
12-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
In case you missed it in The Sun the week of April 7, 2025
Apr. 12—The following stories from this week appeared on and in The Jamestown Sun. The Jamestown City Council unanimously approved on Monday, April 7, a notice of intent to request a release of funds for Stride Development's Riverside Cottages Project. Mayor Dwaine Heinrich was authorized to sign the notice. The city of Jamestown will submit a request to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the release of Community Development Block Grant funds for the project at 902-1514 Gardenette Drive. The City Council also unanimously approved a finding that the project will have no significant impact on the human environment. An environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required, according to city documents. The Riverside Cottages project is a multiphase affordable housing rehabilitation project led by Stride Development. The $48 million project comprises three phases and includes acquiring and rehabilitating the 168 single-bedroom unit development into 150 units providing one-, two- and three-bedroom options. While there has not been a confirmed case of measles in North Dakota since 2011, there is at least some interest in vaccinations among adults, according to Kim Lee, director of nursing for Central Valley Health District. "A few vaccinations for those 55 and older," she said. "Boosting because of travel." The U.S. is seeing a spike in measles cases this year. There were 607 confirmed cases in the U.S. in 21 states with 74 of those cases requiring hospitalization as of Friday, April 4, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles is highly contagious and anyone not protected against it is at risk, according to the CDC. If one person has it, up to 9 out of 10 people nearby will become infected if they are not protected. The MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine is commonly given in two doses. "The measles (vaccine) is very effective," Pinnick said. "It is about 90% effective after one dose and 97% to 98% effective after the second dose. MMR is not something boosted." The James Valley Library System Board of Directors unanimously approved on Wednesday, April 9, updates to its policy on challenging materials in its libraries. The application for challenging materials will also be updated at the next library board meeting on May 14. Updates to the library system's challenge policy include having the complainant read, view or listen to the entire work the individual is challenging and including his or her street and email addresses. "You have to take it in context of the whole work," said Joe Rector, library system director, referring to reading, viewing or listening to the entire work. The policy was also updated to say no appeal is valid if a complainant has appealed and the library board has declined the appeal on three or more requests within a three-year period. The policy previously said no appeal is valid if a complainant has appealed and the library board has declined the appeal on five or more requests within a two-year period.
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
City Council seeks to release funds for housing project in Jamestown
Apr. 9—JAMESTOWN — The Jamestown City Council unanimously approved on Monday, April 7, a notice of intent to request a release of funds for Stride Development's Riverside Cottages Project. Mayor Dwaine Heinrich was authorized to sign the notice. The city of Jamestown will submit a request to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the release of Community Development Block Grant funds for the project at 902-1514 Gardenette Drive. The City Council also unanimously approved a finding that the project will have no significant impact on the human environment. An environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required, according to city documents. The Riverside Cottages project is a multiphase affordable housing rehabilitation project led by Stride Development. The $48 million project comprises three phases and includes acquiring and rehabilitating the 168 single-bedroom unit development into 150 units providing one-, two- and three-bedroom options. Phase 1 secured $1.1 million of 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Phase 2 received $1.08 million of 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and Phase 3 was awarded $1.03 million of 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits and $3 million in state Housing Incentive Fund dollars, The Jamestown Sun reported in February. Currently, the Gardenette consists of 42 single-level walk-up buildings that are utilized as market rate housing. Tom Blackmore, zoning administrator, said some four-unit buildings will be reduced to three. "They're definitely going to have some increased insulation values, looking at better parking, some solar actually on the rooftops to try to reduce the energy usage," he said. "It is going to be a really nice project, and it's going to be good for Jamestown." The City Council held the first reading of an ordinance related to the prohibition of junk. The ordinance amends and reenacts Section 17-12 of Jamestown city code by adding language that allows Jamestown Municipal Court to order removal of trash, rubbish, junk, junk automobiles or abandoned vehicles on private property in addition to any penalties that the court may impose by law upon a conviction. If the person fails to remove the items by a specific date given by the court, the city of Jamestown or its authorized agent will enter the premises to remove and dispose of the items with costs to be assessed on any property owned by the person who was convicted, the ordinance says. Disposal of junk automobiles must be completed in accordance with Section 17-16 of city code and state law. Scott Edinger, chief of police, said after the meeting that the ordinance will help move the process forward of removing trash, rubbish, junk, junk automobiles or abandoned vehicles on private property. "We would get very tiny incremental movements on properties and then we would get stuck because of the seasons, and we'd have to start over in the next summer and sometimes more junk would be accumulated," he said. "Sometimes, we'd even lose ground, so this will force things to move forward." The City Council held the first reading of an ordinance to prohibit camping on public property within Jamestown city limits. The ordinance would add Article 53 of Chapter 22 to Jamestown city code. Article 53 says no person is allowed to camp or occupy a campsite in, under or upon any sidewalk, street, alley, lane, public right of way, park, bench, bridge, viaduct or any other publicly owned property unless an area is specifically designated by signage. Anyone who parks or leaves a vehicle parked or remains within a park for two hours without permission during the hours the park is closed will be found in violation. The council also made the first reading to amend and reenact the existing city code related to parking campers or trailers. The ordinance amends the existing city code — Section 21-16-04.1 — to say it is lawful to park motor homes, recreational vehicles, camper trailers and other trailers on the street directly in front of the owner's residence within a residential district for up to 14 days between April 1 through Oct. 31 each year. The City Council held the first reading of an ordinance to amend Section 1-10 of the city code to increase Jamestown Municipal Court fees. The administration fee will increase from $30 to $125 and the facility fee will increase from $25 to $100. Heinrich said the intent was to have the Municipal Court fees match the fees at Southeast District Court in Jamestown. In other business, the City Council unanimously approved: * a quote to purchase youth basketball and volleyball equipment for the Jamestown Civic Center from Gerrells Sports Center for $92,500. City Administrator Sarah Hellekson said the purchase includes two tabletop scoreboards, two score tables, four rectangular backboards and two youth courts for basketball and volleyball. She said the Civic Center is looking to help generate more revenue for the facility. * the appointment of Laurie Podoll to the Forestry Committee for a three-year term that expires in April 2028. * the appointment of Greg Spenningsby to the Stutsman County Weed Board for an unexpired four-year term that expires in December 2028.
