Latest news with #NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct
The Hill
15 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Environmental groups sue to block ‘Alligator Alcatraz'
A coalition of environmental groups on Friday sued over Trump administration plans to build a new detention center in the Everglades that critics have dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz.' The suit seeks to block the Trump administration from building the new facility on a Florida airfield, the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport (TNT) near Big Cypress National Preserve. 'This massive detention center will blight one of the most iconic ecosystems in the world,' Elise Bennett, Florida and Caribbean director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. 'This reckless attack on the Everglades — the lifeblood of Florida — risks polluting sensitive waters and turning more endangered Florida panthers into roadkill. It makes no sense to build what's essentially a new development in the Everglades for any reason, but this reason is particularly despicable.' Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has cited the remote nature of the area — as well as its proximity to dangerous wildlife — as top features for tapping the area for construction. 'This 30-square mile area is completely surrounded by the Everglades. It presents an efficient, low-cost opportunity to build a temporary detention facility because you don't need to invest that much in the perimeter,' he said. 'If people get out, there's not much waiting for them other than alligators and pythons.' Environmental groups have argued the project violates the National Environmental Policy Act as well as procedures for rulemaking. 'The decision to construct a mass migrant detention and deportation center at the TNT Site was made without conducting any environmental reviews as required under NEPA, without public notice or comment, and without compliance with other federal statutes such as the Endangered Species Act, or state or local land-use laws,' they wrote in the suit filed in federal court in Florida. The facility is projected to cost about $450 million a year, which will come from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Shelter and Services Program that was used to house asylum-seekers during the Biden administration. The Trump administration is largely envisioning the facility as a series of tents along with the construction of other facilities, hoping to house as many as 5,000 migrants at the facility.
The Hill
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hill
The Supreme Court is reining in lower-court overreach on the environment
On May 29, the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County curbed lower courts' ability to micromanage federal agencies' environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. This landmark ruling frees agencies from decades of defensive, litigation-averse mindsets, boosting prospects for projects critical to addressing urgent economic and environmental challenges. The case centered on a proposed Utah railroad to connect the Uinta Basin's growing oil (and potentially mineral) production to the national rail network. To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Surface Transportation Board had produced a 3,600-page environmental impact statement that thoroughly analyzed alternative options, mitigation strategies and public input. It then concluded that the project's benefits outweighed its environmental costs and issued an approval. Environmental groups and a Colorado county promptly challenged the decision in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that the Surface Transportation Board failed to adequately assess several environmental impacts, including those related to downstream oil refining and upstream drilling. The D.C. Circuit sided with several claims and vacated the approval. The Supreme Court, which hadn't addressed a National Environmental Policy Act case since 2004, saw a need for course correction. As Justice Brett Kavanaugh's incisive opinion noted, 'A 1970 legislative acorn has grown into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development.' Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act to balance resource use, high living standards and a healthy environment, not to stifle progress. Yet, activist groups have weaponized it as a 'blunt and haphazard tool' to push unpopular policy agendas through litigation, undermining the law's effectiveness and skirting the democratic process. Kavanaugh's opinion clarified two key points. First, the National Environmental Policy Act is a 'procedural cross-check' in which agencies have substantial deference in how they evaluate environmental impacts. The judiciary's sole role is to confirm that agencies address environmental impacts and feasible alternatives, not to police their methods or paralyze projects. Second, agencies need not assess the environmental effects of separate projects, though they remain accountable for directly connected impacts — for example, of how runoff in a project might affect a fish population miles downstream. These clarifications are transformative. By rebuking dubious precedents set by lower courts, the Supreme Court has set agency reviewers free from an impossible situation wherein, as the Property and Environment Research Center noted, 'NEPA obligations could balloon as widely as the most creative plaintiff demands.' No longer sitting ducks for deep-pocketed green litigators, agencies can now move beyond 'litigation-proofing' their reviews. The days of an environmental impact statement averaging 4.5 years and 669 pages, with appendices topping 1,037 pages, should be over. Taxpayers will save money, large projects will become more viable and whole industries (e.g. mining) will come back to life. The only losers here are groups like the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians, for whom grinding National Environmental Policy Act litigation was a cash cow. Although oil was the subject of this specific case, all forms of energy will benefit. As Kavanaugh pointed out, environmental groups have used this statute to 'fight even clean-energy projects — from wind farms to hydroelectric dams, from solar farms to geothermal wells.' The nuclear industry was arguably the highest-profile victim of the National Environmental Policy Act weaponization. The first major case, a 1971 D.C. Circuit challenge to a reactor's environmental impact study, resulted in an 18-month nationwide moratorium on reactor construction. This was the first devastating blow to the nuclear industry, which crumbled over the next decade and is still struggling to recover. This decision will also boost our country's capacity to mitigate the wildfire crisis. Forest management projects are the most common subject of National Environmental Policy Act litigation, according to a Breakthrough Institute study. The Property and Environment Research Center found that prescribed burns requiring an environmental impact study take an average of 7.2 years to implement. Ironically, despite their apparent concern about trains sparking wildfires in the Uinta Basin, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians all have extensive track records of obstructing mitigation projects in forests that eventually fall victim to extreme wildfires. For example, the Center for Biological Diversity delayed a U.S. Forest Service forest thinning project that, if completed on schedule, could have saved the California town of Grizzly Flats, which was mostly decimated by the Caldor Fire in 2021. By removing this poison from the regulatory well, the Supreme Court has begun to clear the path to tackling our most pressing energy and environmental challenges. But the court can only do so much. The core of the National Environmental Policy Act's legislative text is still largely the same as it was in 1970. Congress needs to resolve its vulnerabilities as part of a comprehensive permitting reform, and codifying durable limits to judicial review should be a top priority. Fortunately, the Supreme Court just delivered a clear signal that it is time to act. Patrick Hynes is a fellow with ConservAmerica.
UPI
18-06-2025
- Business
- UPI
CBP awards $309 million for border wall, waives environmental laws
June 18 (UPI) -- U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Wednesday awarded $309,463,000 to Fisher Sand and Gravel Co. to build 27 miles of border wall in Arizona's Tucson sector. Environmental laws were waived for the border wall construction, according to CBP. CBP said in a statement the taxpayer funds came from border wall contracts canceled by the Biden administration. CBP's statement added, "The Tucson Sector is an area of high illegal-entry attempts and experiences large numbers of individuals and narcotics being smuggled into the country illegally. Continuing border wall construction in Tucson will support the Department of Homeland Security's ability to impede and deny illegal border crossings and the drug and human smuggling activities of transnational criminal organizations." The border wall money was the fifth environmental laws waiver signed by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for the border wall. The money for this latest section of the wall to be funded came from CBP's fiscal Year 2021 funds. On June 5, DHS issued three environmental waivers for border wall construction in Arizona and New Mexico as the Trump administration prioritizes border wall construction and fossil fuel production over adhering to previously created environmental regulations. DHS said the waiver of environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, are necessary to expedite border wall building.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court sparks backlash after ruling in favor of controversial railroad project: 'Endangers local communities'
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to environmentalists, siding with a railroad expansion in Utah to help transport crude oil. As the Guardian reported, the court ruled unanimously in favor of the railroad, deciding that the original lower court based its ruling to stop the railroad on an environmental impact assessment that was too limited in scope. According to The Salt Lake Tribune, the expansion of the Uinta Basin Railway would add around 88 miles of track and could connect oil suppliers with a wider market, such as refining facilities on the Gulf Coast. The project was approved in 2021 but paused in 2023 after multiple parties challenged it. The recent ruling to continue the project worries environmentalists around the country. It challenges protections that have held since the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA sets forth a process for agencies to assess the environmental, social, and economic impact of a particular project, followed by a period of public review and community comments. Siding with the railroad expansion could challenge environmental protection precedents. Ashfaq Khalfan, Oxfam America's director of climate justice, said, "The Supreme Court's decision endangers local communities, many of them Indigenous and rural, in favor of the dirty energy status quo," per the Guardian. The Supreme Court decision is a danger to communities around the railway. For one, the transported oil poses a large threat to the Colorado River, its ecosystem, and the communities it serves if the train derails or oil spills, as The Colorado Sun reported. Communities can be exposed to pollutants from a variety of industrial activities. One of the most famous instances is the story of Erin Brockovich, who began a legal case against Pacific Gas and Electric Company regarding groundwater contamination in California. Do you think your city has good air quality? Definitely Somewhat Depends on the time of year Not at all Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Pollution impacts communities around the world every day. Air pollution health risks include respiratory issues, cardiovascular disease, and cancers. Polluted water can cause a variety of gastrointestinal issues, skin conditions, and cancers. "Our bedrock environmental laws, like NEPA, are meant to ensure people are protected from corporate polluters. … Today's decision will undoubtedly help the fossil fuel industry," said Sierra Club senior attorney Nathaniel Shoaff. Most often, marginalized groups bear the brunt of environmental hazards and pollution. With mass layoffs in key government organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency, scientists and experts warn of repercussions for the health of people and the environment. Organizations like the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity are working to protect the people and environments most impacted by corporate decisions like this railroad expansion. Voting for political leaders who recognize the serious nature of the changing climate and its effects, regardless of which side of the political aisle they fall on, is also vital to continuing to protect the environment. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
National monuments have grown and shrunk under US presidents for over a century thanks to one law
America's public lands, from its majestic national parks to its vast national forests, are at the heart of the country's identity. They cover more than a quarter of the nation and large parts of the West. Some are crisscrossed by hiking trails and used by hunters and fishermen. Ranchers graze cattle on others. In many areas, the government earns money through oil, gas, timber and mining leases. These federally managed public lands have long enjoyed broad bipartisan support, as have moves to turn them into protected national parks and monuments. Research consistently shows that a majority of Americans want their congressional representatives to protect public access to these lands for recreation. One avenue for protection is the creation of national monuments. But the status of national monuments can change. Presidents have expanded and contracted national monuments, as the U.S. saw with Bears Ears National Monument in Utah over the course of the past three presidencies. The rules for the use and maintenance of various public lands can also change, and that can affect surrounding communities and their economies. The U.S. is likely to see changes to public lands again under the second Trump administration. One of the new administration's early orders was for the Department of Interior to review all national monuments for potential oil and gas drilling and mining. At least two national monuments that President Joe Biden created in California are among the new administration's targets. The avenue for many of these changes is rooted in one century-old law. The Antiquities Act of 1906, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, gave Congress or the president the authority to establish national monuments on federal land as a means of protecting areas for ecological, cultural, historical or scientific purposes. From Theodore Roosevelt on, 18 of the 21 presidents have used the Antiquities Act to create, expand or contract national monuments through a presidential proclamation. By using the Antiquities Act to create, expand or reduce national monuments, presidents can avoid an environmental impact statement, normally required under the National Environmental Policy Act, which also allows for public input. Supporters argue that forgoing the environmental impact statement helps expedite monument creation and expansion. Critics say bypassing the review means potential impacts of the monument designations can be overlooked. The Antiquities Act also offers no clarity on whether a president can reduce the amount of area protected by prior presidents. The act simply states that a president designates 'the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.' This has led to the shifting of national monument boundaries based on the priorities of each administration. An example is Bears Ears, an area of Utah that is considered significant to several tribes but also has uranium, gas and oil resources. In 2016, President Barack Obama designated Bears Ears a national monument. In 2017, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation reducing Bears Ears by 80% of its total designated size. The monument's size and scope shifted a third time when President Joe Biden reestablished Bears Ears to the boundaries designated by Obama. In the span of just over five years, the monument was created, reduced, then restored to the original monument designation. The uncertainty about the long-term reliability of a designation makes it challenging for federal agencies to manage the land or assure Indigenous communities that the government will protect cultural, historical and ecological heritage. National parks and monuments can help fuel local economies. A 2017 study by Headwaters Economics, a nonprofit research group, found that Western rural counties with more public land have had greater economic growth, including in jobs and personal income, than those with little public land. National monuments can also benefit neighboring counties by increasing population, income and employment opportunities. While many counties adjacent to public lands may be dependent on natural resource extraction, the establishment of a national monument can open up new opportunities by expanding tourism and recreation. For example, four national parks and monuments in southeastern Utah, including Natural Bridges, drew about 2.4 million visitors who spent nearly US$400 million in surrounding communities. However, when there is uncertainty over whether public lands will remain protected, communities may be hesitant to invest in that future, not knowing whether it will soon change. There are a few ways to increase the certainty around the future of national monuments. First, lawsuits could push the courts to determine whether the president has the authority to reduce national monuments. Since the Antiquities Act doesn't directly address presidential authority to reduce monument size, that's an open question. Advocacy groups sued the government over Trump's authority to shrink Bears Ears National Monument, but their cases were put on hold after Biden expanded the monument again. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear other cases in 2024 that argued that a president's authority to declare and expand national monuments should be far more limited under the law. Second, Congress could permanently protect designated national monuments through legislation. That would require presidential approval, and the process would likely be slow and cumbersome. Creating White Clouds Wilderness in Idaho, for example, took decades and a public campaign to have it designated a national monument before Congress approved its wilderness designation. Third, Congress could take new steps to protect public lands. For example, a bipartisan bill titled Public Lands in Public Hands Act could block privatization of public lands and increase and maintain access for recreation. One of the bill's lead sponsors is U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke, a Republican from Montana who served as Interior secretary during the first Trump administration. Whether the bill will pass and gain the president's approval remains to be seen. The Antiquities Act has led to the creation of 163 terrestrial and marine monuments and subsequently the protection of land and waters that hold cultural, scientific or historic significance. These monuments tend to have broad support. During the first Trump administration, there were over 650,000 public comments on Trump's review of national monument creation. An analysis found that 98% of the comments expressed broad support for both the creation and expansion of national monuments. Public lands are more than just physical places. They are spaces where our ideals and values around public land unify us as Americans. They are quintessentially American – and in many ways define and shape the American identity. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Monica Hubbard, Boise State University and Erika Allen Wolters, Oregon State University Read more: Yellowstone is losing its snow as the climate warms, and that means widespread problems for water and wildlife In America, national parks are more than scenic − they're sacred. But they were created at a cost to Native Americans FDR's forest army: How the New Deal helped seed the modern environmental movement 85 years ago The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
