The Environmental Case For Reforming NEPA

This week ConservAmerica co-hosted a teleconference with the Federalist Society to discuss the Trump administration’s proposal to revise regulations governing the National Environmental Policy Act.

ConservAmerica is aligned with many who have called for NEPA reform, first, because we believe it is essential to have a rational, well-functioning environmental review process that helps to focus agencies on those issues that matter most. And, second, because our nation’s robust environmental protections and standards exist because of a strong economy, not in spite of it.

Our environment is far cleaner, and the federal government’s actions are far more environmentally mindful than they were five decades ago when NEPA was first signed into law. A large part of the improvement can be attributed to NEPA and the nation’s other seminal environmental laws.

However, NEPA has not been substantively updated since it was first signed into law in 1970 and needs to be modernized along with the nation’s aging infrastructure. While the noble intent of NEPA remains intact, the process to ensure agencies are making informed permitting decisions is too often used as a tool to obstruct investment and block new infrastructure that in many cases is causing the very environmental harm that the law was intended to correct.

For example, an airport runway expansion in Taos, New Mexico—which pilots said would increase accessibility and safety—was delayed for more than 20 years due to problems within the NEPA review process. In suburban Maryland, a few miles from the nation’s Capital, the 16-mile “Purple Line” public transit project was bogged down by 14 years of NEPA reviews and associated litigation before finally being approved.

This paralysis by analysis and endless litigation does nothing to enhance environmental protection. Instead, it causes significant delays that add costs and sometimes blocks projects entirely, including those projects that seek to expand renewable energy and public transit. For example, the Cape Wind Energy Project off Nantucket Sound would have reduced carbon emissions by 1.6 million metric tons per year, but was delayed for 16 years and ultimately canceled—not because of environmental concerns but because of local NIMBYism.