[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday sharply restricted the scope of the environmental impact statement in the developer’s victory.
Justice said these claims of potential environmental impacts are frequently used to delay or block new projects.
“The acorns in the 1970 legislative world have grown over the years into judicial oaks that have stooped infrastructure development by spoofing a little more process. Some kind of course revision is appropriate.”
He said the procedural law gave judges and environmentalists too much power to interfere or prevent development, he said.
“There will be fewer projects reaching the finish line. In fact, there will be fewer projects up to the starting line. Surviving projects will cost more than expected or more than necessary,” he said. “And that in turn means fewer expensive railways, airports, wind turbines, power lines, dams, residential developments, highways, bridges, subways, stadiums, arenas, data centers, etc. It also means less work as new projects will be difficult to finance and build in a timely manner.”
The 9th Circuit’s Court of Appeals has a broad view on the scope of its environmental protection and impact statements, which could make this decision a lot in California and the West.
The National Environmental Policy Act of the 1970s was the first of a series of groundbreaking environmental laws. Federal agencies had to prepare a report assessing the impact of projects funded or approved by the government.
“The goal of the law is to inform the agency’s decisions, not to paralyze it,” Kavanaugh said.
In a unanimous decision, the High Court ruled the developer of the proposed 88-mile railroad in northeastern Utah.
The project required approval from the US Surface Transportation Commission, which generated a 3,600-page analysis of the potential impact.
In blocking the proposal, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals cited the possibility of increasing oil drilling in Utah and pollution along the Gulf Coast. The judge said these “upstream” and “downstream” effects of the railway must be considered before the new railway is approved.
Seven counties that supported the development appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that potential environmental impacts should be limited to the construction of the railway itself.
Kavanaugh and the court agreed. “The board did not need to assess the potential environmental impact of separate upstream and downstream projects,” he said.
The three Liberal parties of the court – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed to the decision but did not sign on to Kavanaugh’s opinion.
Judge Neil M. Golsch, a native of Colorado who is friends with some of the major developers, did not take part in the decision.
[ad_2]Source link
