The Supreme Court recently made a significant ruling that limits the scope of environmental impact statements, favoring developers in a unanimous decision. This ruling came on a Thursday and was reached with an 8-0 vote. The justices believe that environmental claims have often been used to stall or prevent new projects from getting off the ground.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, speaking for the court, noted that what started as a straightforward process in 1970 has evolved into a complicated system that often hinders infrastructure development. He emphasized that too much authority has been given to judges and environmentalists, leading to fewer projects being completed and increased costs for those that do make it through the system.
Kavanaugh pointed out that the delays in project approvals have real-world consequences, resulting in fewer railroads, airports, and housing developments, which in turn means fewer jobs. He argued that the goal of environmental laws should be to inform decision-making, not to create roadblocks.
The ruling is particularly impactful for states like California and others in the West, where the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a broad view of environmental protections. Critics of the decision, including environmental advocacy groups, warn that it undermines decades of legal precedent designed to ensure that federal projects consider their potential impact on communities and the environment.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the ruling as disastrous, suggesting it would lead to more pollution and greater risks to public health. Meanwhile, supporters of the ruling, including the American Petroleum Institute, argue that it restores the original intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which was meant to streamline the permitting process for projects.
The Supreme Court’s decision arose from a case involving a proposed 88-mile railroad in northeastern Utah, which would transport crude oil. The D.C. Circuit Court had previously blocked the project, citing the need to consider its broader environmental impacts. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the approval process should focus solely on the railroad itself, not on separate upstream and downstream projects.
This ruling could affect major infrastructure projects in California, such as the high-speed rail connecting San Francisco to Anaheim, which still needs to clear environmental reviews for certain segments. The Delta Conveyance Project, a controversial water tunnel project, is also undergoing NEPA review and may see its prospects change due to this ruling.
As the dust settles, officials from various agencies are still assessing how this decision will influence ongoing and future projects. The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a significant shift in how environmental impacts are evaluated in relation to federal projects, and its long-term effects will likely resonate across the country.