Uinta Basin Railway group looks to fund project with $2.4 billion in federal bonds
The group pushing for a rail line in eastern Utah that would allow the state to ramp up oil production is hoping to fund the project through $2.4 billion in U.S. Department of Transportation bonds.
The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition for years has been lobbying for the 88-mile Uinta Basin Railway, which would connect the oil-rich region of northeastern Utah to national rail lines, facilitating the export of waxy crude oil to refineries on the Gulf Coast.
To pay for the railway, the coalition — which consists of representatives from Dagget, Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, San Juan, Servier and Uintah counties — approved a resolution last month announcing its intent to seek $2.4 billion in private activity bonds from the U.S. Department of Transportation.
That's a $500 million increase from 2023, when the coalition passed a similar resolution seeking $1.9 billion in federal bonds.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The railway extension could allow for the transport of an estimated 350,000 barrels of oil each day, massively increasing the state's oil production. The refineries in Salt Lake City, for instance, currently have a market capacity of 85,000 barrels per day.
But connecting the Uinta Basin to national rail lines means increased oil exports through Colorado, which has proved to be a major sticking point. In 2022, environmental groups and Colorado's Eagle County sued the coalition, arguing that the federal Surface Transportation Board — the agency tasked with the environmental review — fell short in its analysis, failing to consider the risks of the railroad expansion.
The project cleared a major roadblock in May after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a prior court ruling that found the environmental review was incomplete. The ruling returns the case to a lower court for consideration.
'This was not only a win for the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition and counties in the state of Utah, but a win for the United States in being able to move forward with a major infrastructure project,' said Greg Miles, a Duchesne County Commissioner who sits on the board of the coalition, during a public meeting Thursday. 'There's a lot of things that oil does for us in our lives.'
And although it still faces regulatory and legal hurdles, the coalition has made several moves over the last month toward financing the railroad. On Thursday, it heard public comments related to the bonds.
The Department of Transportation's Private Activity Bonds program is a tax-exempt financing option from the federal government aimed at supporting private-public partnerships. The program has financed bridge replacements, highways, rail lines and other transportation-related ventures.
U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of controversial Utah oil train
That $2.4 billion is the total estimated cost for the project, according to the coalition, although it's unclear how much money will come from private investments.
But funds for the bond program are running dry. According to the department's data, there's only $500 million left to allocate, the program having dished out $29.4 billion of its $30 billion cap. It's up to Congress to replenish the program.
'How is the coalition going to get this money? And when?' asked Deeda Seed with the Center for Biological Diversity during the meeting Thursday.
Seed also raised concerns over the 'ballooning' cost of the railway, which has increased in the last few years.
'How does this project pencil out? We have no clue, the public has no clue, especially when President Trump hopes the price of oil will decline to $40 to $50 per barrel,' she said.
Just about all of the roughly two-dozen commenters on Thursday spoke against the railway, and using bonds to fund it — they cited concerns over the project's rising cost, potential harm to wildlife and habitat, the negative impact on air quality, and how a derailment could harm the Colorado River and the people who rely on it for drinking water.
'I deplore subsidizing the increase of oil production in the Uinta Basin, which will increase the ozone and air pollution, at a time when all federal subsidies are being cut for renewable energy,' said Joan Entwistle, a Summit County resident. 'It's just another example of how we're putting the thumb on the scale for fossil fuels.'
'The tariffs are being imposed at a level of 50% for steel. Clearly, that is going to raise the prices. Railroads are notorious for cost overruns,' said David Bennett, also a Summit County resident.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
6 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case that could go to Supreme Court
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A federal appeals court won't reconsider its decision in a redistricting case that went against two Native American tribes that challenged North Dakota's legislative redistricting map, and the dispute could be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. The case has drawn national interest because of a 2-1 ruling issued in May by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that erased a path through the federal Voting Rights Act for people in seven states to sue under a key provision of the landmark federal civil rights law. The tribes argued that the 2021 map violated the act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The panel said only the U.S. Department of Justice can bring such lawsuits. That followed a 2023 ruling out of Arkansas in the same circuit that also said private individuals can't sue under Section 2 of the law. Those rulings conflict with decades of rulings by appellate courts in other federal circuits that have affirmed the rights of private individuals to sue under Section 2, creating a split that the Supreme Court may be asked to resolve. However, several of the high court's conservative justices recently have indicated interest in making it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. After the May decision, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians asked the appeals court for a rehearing before all 11 judges. Attorneys general of 19 states, numerous former U.S. Justice Department attorneys, several voting rights historians and others also asked for a rehearing. But in a ruling Thursday, the full court denied the request, which was filed by the Native American Rights Fund and other groups representing the tribes. Three judges said they would have granted it, including Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton, who had dissented in the previous ruling. The majority opinion in May said that for the tribes to sue under the Voting Rights Act, the law would have had to 'unambiguously' give private persons or groups the right to do so. Lenny Powell, a staff attorney for the fund, said in a statement that the refusal to reconsider 'wrongly restricts voters disenfranchised by a gerrymandered redistricting map" from challenging that map. Powell said Monday that the tribes are now considering their legal options. Another group representing the tribes, the Campaign Legal Center, said the ruling is "contrary to both the intent of Congress in enacting the law and to decades of Supreme Court precedent affirming voters' power to enforce the law in court.' The office of North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. The groups said they will continue to fight to ensure fair maps. The North Dakota and Arkansas rulings apply only in the states of the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. In the wake of the Arkansas decision, Minnesota and other states have moved to shore up voting rights with state-level protections to plug the growing gaps in the federal law. The North Dakota tribes filed their lawsuit in 2022. The three-judge panel heard appeal arguments last October after Republican Secretary of State Michael Howe appealed a lower court's November 2023 decision in favor of the tribes. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Peter Welte ordered creation of a new district that encompassed both tribes' reservations, which are about 60 miles (97 kilometers) apart. In 2024, voters elected members from both tribes, all Democrats, to the district's Senate seat and two House seats. ___ Karnowski reported from Minneapolis.
Hamilton Spectator
7 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case that could go to Supreme Court
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A federal appeals court won't reconsider its decision in a redistricting case that went against two Native American tribes that challenged North Dakota's legislative redistricting map, and the dispute could be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. The case has drawn national interest because of a 2-1 ruling issued in May by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that erased a path through the federal Voting Rights Act for people in seven states to sue under a key provision of the landmark federal civil rights law. The tribes argued that the 2021 map violated the act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The panel said only the U.S. Department of Justice can bring such lawsuits. That followed a 2023 ruling out of Arkansas in the same circuit that also said private individuals can't sue under Section 2 of the law. Those rulings conflict with decades of rulings by appellate courts in other federal circuits that have affirmed the rights of private individuals to sue under Section 2, creating a split that the Supreme Court may be asked to resolve. However, several of the high court's conservative justices recently have indicated interest in making it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act . After the May decision, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians asked the appeals court for a rehearing before all 11 judges. Attorneys general of 19 states, numerous former U.S. Justice Department attorneys, several voting rights historians and others also asked for a rehearing. But in a ruling Thursday, the full court denied the request, which was filed by the Native American Rights Fund and other groups representing the tribes. Three judges said they would have granted it, including Circuit Chief Judge Steven Colloton, who had dissented in the previous ruling. The majority opinion in May said that for the tribes to sue under the Voting Rights Act, the law would have had to 'unambiguously' give private persons or groups the right to do so. Lenny Powell, a staff attorney for the fund, said in a statement that the refusal to reconsider 'wrongly restricts voters disenfranchised by a gerrymandered redistricting map' from challenging that map. Powell said Monday that the tribes are now considering their legal options. Another group representing the tribes, the Campaign Legal Center, said the ruling is 'contrary to both the intent of Congress in enacting the law and to decades of Supreme Court precedent affirming voters' power to enforce the law in court.' The office of North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. The groups said they will continue to fight to ensure fair maps. The North Dakota and Arkansas rulings apply only in the states of the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. In the wake of the Arkansas decision, Minnesota and other states have moved to shore up voting rights with state-level protections to plug the growing gaps in the federal law. The North Dakota tribes filed their lawsuit in 2022. The three-judge panel heard appeal arguments last October after Republican Secretary of State Michael Howe appealed a lower court's November 2023 decision in favor of the tribes. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Peter Welte ordered creation of a new district that encompassed both tribes' reservations, which are about 60 miles (97 kilometers) apart. In 2024, voters elected members from both tribes, all Democrats, to the district's Senate seat and two House seats. Republicans hold supermajority control of North Dakota's Legislature. ___ Karnowski reported from Minneapolis. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
17 hours ago
Supreme Court's expansive view of presidential power is 'solidly' pro-Trump: ANALYSIS
President Donald Trump may not have a perfect rubber stamp in the U.S. Supreme Court, but he is finding little willingness by the six-justice conservative majority to stand in his way. As the justices begin the traditional summer recess, the sweeping impact of their judgments from the recently concluded term -- in 56 cases argued and more than 100 matters from the emergency docket -- is coming into focus for the administration and the country. Despite the nation's narrow political divide, the court delivered rulings disproportionately advantageous to interests of the Republican political establishment in power. "Time and again, the Supreme Court came down on one side, and solidly so -- on the very conservative side," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar and dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. Most notably, the court imposed dramatic new limits on the ability of federal judges to check presidential power, coming one year after it established sweeping, presumptive immunity for presidents engaged in "official acts." "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies," explained Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her historic opinion allowing Trump to move forward with plans to end birthright citizenship, which has been the law of the land for more than a century. In 14 other emergency appeals Trump brought to the high court, the justices granted his request -- at least in part -- on 12 occasions. The conservative majority gave the green light to the Trump administration's mass layoffs of federal workers, the removal of openly transgender service members from the U.S. military, deportation of noncitizens to third countries with little due process, and access for DOGE staffers to Americans' most sensitive information held by the Social Security Administration. The court did narrowly block Trump's request to continue a freeze of $2 billion in foreign aid money owed to nonprofit groups for services rendered and denied a bid to dismiss the legal case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland migrant and alleged gang member whom the administration deported to El Salvador in violation of a court order, and other alleged Venezuelan criminals. The successive decisions have increasingly incensed the court's liberals. "Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote bluntly Thursday in a dissent from the court's decision clearing the way for the government to send eight migrants to South Sudan. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in extraordinarily stark and impassioned language in dissent in the birthright citizenship case, accused her conservative colleagues of creating an "existential threat to the rule of law" by frequently overriding lower court judges. "This Court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise," she wrote. Many legal scholars don't share Jackson's ominous view, including several critical of Trump. "I'm pretty confident that within a matter of weeks … there's going to be basically nationwide coverage of declarations or injunctions making clear that the birthright citizenship contention of the government is just absolutely absurd, insane, and unlawful," said George Conway III, a prominent conservative lawyer who now leads a coalition of attorneys opposed to actions of the Trump administration. As for a broader fear about the erosion of judicial authority, Conway suggested fixation on the court system as a check on the president might be misplaced. "We can't expect the courts to save us. Even if every district judge in the country and every appellate court in the country, and every justice … on the Supreme Court agrees that this administration is violating the law, left and right," Conway said. "They can't save us. The people have to save themselves here." Still, the Supreme Court's expansive view of presidential power is giving Trump significant leeway -- with potentially more to come headed into the summer. The justices will soon decide whether to roll back a temporary nationwide injunction currently barring the Trump administration from moving forward with large-scale reductions of the federal workforce across 19 agencies and offices. They are also expected to weigh in on whether to let the president move forward with elimination of most employees at the Department of Education in an effort to dismantle the agency while litigation over its future continues in federal court. Many veteran court watchers have decried a lack of explanation from the justices for its decisions in these consequential cases. "This court not only militantly refuses to talk about the effect of their decisions, they kind of gaslight us into pretending that the effects of their decision won't be what they are," said Sherrilyn Ifill, Howard University law professor and former director of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Chief Justice John Roberts -- who was the justice most often in the majority last term at 95% of the time -- was the first member of the court to speak out publicly after the flurry of controversial decisions. In rare televised remarks at a federal judicial conference in North Carolina, Roberts confronted what he called "some sharp adjectives" directed at the court amidst a wave of critical public opinion. "The idea that we're responsible for whatever somebody is angry about -- it just doesn't make any sense, and it's very dangerous," Roberts said of the critics. "What they're angry about or upset about is probably not that you applied the principle … It's that they lost whatever they were looking for." A judge's role, Roberts said, is to "interpret the law to the best of our ability," not to write the laws.
