\u201cIt\u2019s making swiss cheese of the NEPA statute by putting an increasing number of holes in it,\u201d said Deron Lovaas, a senior policy advisor at the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Enacted in 1970, NEPA was the first major environmental law in the United States and has been referred to as the \u201cMagna Carta\u201d of federal environmental laws<\/a>. It was created to ensure that agencies fully consider the environmental consequences of their actions and explore lower-impact alternatives. It\u2019s also an important civil rights policy, guaranteeing that communities are included in the development process of nearby projects, like highways. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Surface transportation reauthorization bills are passed every few years to update policies and investments based on current national priorities. The past three laws — enacted in 2005, 2012, and 2015 — have slowly chipped away at NEPA\u2019s power, with more than 60 provisions included that are intended to hasten the environmental review process, prioritizing speed over project impact, Lovaas said. The most recent iteration of the law in 2015 was called the FAST Act, or Fixing America\u2019s Surface Transportation Act<\/a>, not-so-subtly hinting at Congress\u2019 focus on project pace. That\u2019s not a good guiding philosophy for infrastructure nor environmental policy, Lovaas said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe learned the hard way that \u2018Move fast and break things\u2019 is not the best way of doing business,\u201d he said. \u201cHighways and bridges were rammed through communities or through green fields, causing huge damage.\u201d The concept that environmental reviews hinder development drives Lovaas crazy, he said, because in-depth reviews actually have a history of improving project design<\/a> and cutting costs<\/a> for developers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the most significant rollbacks proposed in this year\u2019s bill establishes both natural gas gathering lines — pipelines that carry gas from a wellhead to a central collection point — and surface transportation projects that cost up to $6 million (or $35 million if a small percentage of federal funds are involved) as \u201ccategorical exclusions\u201d from NEPA. Categorical exclusions are federally defined as having no \u201csignificant effect on the human environment\u201d<\/a> and therefore don\u2019t require an environmental review. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe categorical exclusion has been an escape which has become increasingly dangerous,\u201d said Daniel Mandelker, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis and one of the nation\u2019s leading experts on NEPA. \u201cCongressional opponents of NEPA have figured out that that’s a good way to undermine it.\u201d Categorical exclusions can be a loophole for developers, he said. For example, a large project — such as a highway or logging operation — can be filed as multiple smaller, categorically excluded projects, allowing them to dodge environmental reviews.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new bill also mandates that, unless it is an exceptional case, environmental reviews of major projects must be completed in two years and sets a 200-page limit for a project\u2019s environmental impact statement. These restrictions are completely arbitrary, Liz Perera, climate policy director at the Sierra Club, told Grist. \u201cThese things can be thousands of pages because when you really look at the full impact of these huge projects, that’s a reasonable amount of evaluation.\u201d The limitations are just another way of detoothing NEPA, agreed Mandelker, who described the page limit as \u201cridiculous\u201d and the two-year timeline as having the potential to lead to \u201cinadequate evaluation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt’s a death by a thousand cuts,\u201d Mandelker said. \u201cCongress wouldn\u2019t dare overrule NEPA, so what they have done is pass a series of statutes, mainly applying to transportation projects but also applying to energy projects, airport projects, and forest management projects that make it easier [for developers] to comply.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The provisions also expand a NEPA program that delegates environmental review authority to states, which can result in shoddy work and cut corners, Mandelker said. Many state departments of transportation are underfunded, strapped for time, or may simply not be interested in performing an in-depth environmental review, he said. A highway expansion incident in Texas supports Mandelker\u2019s concerns: The federal government paused the project in March, citing concerns that the state Department of Transportation had ignored serious civil rights concerns<\/a> in their environmental review. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The provisions in this year\u2019s Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act might surprise those familiar with President Joe Biden\u2019s flurry of promises to champion environmental justice<\/a>, reduce the country\u2019s emissions<\/a>, and conserve nearly a third<\/a> of the nation\u2019s land. Environmentalists and experts hypothesize that the provisions in the recent transportation bill are likely a byproduct of Democratic efforts to stoke bipartisanship on infrastructure policy. The party will need at least some Republican support<\/a> in passing Biden\u2019s $2 trillion American Jobs Plan<\/a>, and these smaller compromises may tip the scale in Democrats\u2019 favor. The problem is, Perera said, that the consequences will likely be damaging to communities, justice, and the planet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe continue to be concerned that, in a desire to get bipartisan support,\u201d she said, \u201cthey may give concessions that significantly limit the ability for communities to have representation in infrastructure projects and for the environment to be protected.\u201d<\/p>\n This story was originally published by Grist<\/a> with the headline “Death by a thousand cuts”: How Congress continues to whittle away at a critical environmental policy<\/a> on Jun 1, 2021.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/grist.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/i-heart-nepa.jpg\")