Author: Andrew Jeong, John Kruzel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared inclined to limit the extent to which federal agencies must review the environmental impacts of projects they regulate in a dispute over a Utah railroad proposal challenged by one environmental group and another. Colorado County.
The court heard arguments from an appeal by a coalition of seven Utah counties and an infrastructure investment group challenging a lower court decision that halted the project and found deficiencies in the environmental impact report issued by a federal agency called the Surface Transportation Board when approving the rail line. Yes.
The county wants to build a 80-mile (142-kilometer) rail line in northeastern Utah to connect the sparsely populated Uinta Basin region to an existing freight rail network primarily used to transport waxy crude oil.
Conservative and liberal judges may have gone too far in concluding that lower courts failed to adequately examine the railroad’s impact on watershed vegetation and wildlife and on air quality in the Gulf Coast communities where it would be serviced. I asked a question that indicated that I could.
The case tests the scope of environmental impact studies federal agencies must conduct under a U.S. law called the National Environmental Policy Act, enacted in 1970 to prevent environmental damage that could result from major projects. . The law requires the agency to investigate the “reasonably foreseeable” effects of a project.
The board, which has regulatory authority over new rail lines, released an environmental impact report and approved the coalition’s proposal in 2021.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson told the challengers’ lawyer, William Jay, that the board would not have the power to prevent oil from being transported by rail because it regulates railroads, not freight.
“If you can’t tell what’s being transported, what difference does the environmental impact of a refinery make to your decision about whether to approve it?” Jackson asked.
Jay said this is important because one of the things the law in question requires of agencies is “to look at foreseeable consequences, even when they cannot be mitigated.”
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh has expressed concern that judicial speculation has led agencies to conduct extensive environmental reviews.
“The court took an overly aggressive role, providing incentives for the agency to produce 3,000 pages of environmental impact reports,” Kavanaugh told Justice Department lawyer Edwin Kneedler. Kavanaugh agreed.
Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration supported the railroad coalition in the case, as did Utah.
Too extensive environmental reviews could lengthen regulatory timelines by years and jeopardize the viability of projects and future infrastructure development, according to companies and industry groups.
“Building infrastructure requires investment and for investors, time is money. Opponents of the project, by contrast, know that time is on their side and if they are rescued just to push the process a little further, the project could be halted,” the coalition said. Defense lawyer Paul Clement said: Judges.
Some judges appear concerned that Clement’s proposed legal test for determining the scope of environmental review may be too narrow, given that actions could have implications beyond the local scope of a project.
Clement urged the court to rule that the agency’s review need only consider potential impacts that may occur in time and geographic locations close to the proposed project and that are not within the regulatory authority of other agencies.
“You want absolute rules that make no sense,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Clement.
Jackson said the test appears to be outside the purpose of the Environmental Review Act.
The Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the commission’s decision to allow the project, as did Eagle County, Colorado. The project would increase train traffic in the area and double traffic on the existing rail line along the Colorado River, they noted.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the challengers in 2023.
Fifteen other states also supported the challenger. Colorado said its economy relies on outdoor recreation and the project increases the risk of leaks, spills or railcar accidents near the headwaters of the Colorado River.
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case after some Democrats called for his former legal client, businessman Philip Anschutz, to withdraw because he had a financial stake in the outcome of the case.
The ruling on the case is expected to be made by the end of June.
