Latest News

US Supreme Court limits environmental review in Utah Railway ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court gave a blow to environmentalists by allowing federal agencies the ability to limit their review of the environmental impact on projects that they regulate. However, the justices supported a Utah railroad project designed to transport crude oil.

The 8-0 decision overturned an earlier court ruling that had stopped the project. It had also faulted a Surface Transportation Board environmental impact report issued by the federal agency in its approval of the railway for being too limited in scope. Environmentalists and the Colorado County challenged the project.

A coalition of seven Utah counties, along with an infrastructure investment group, are working to build an 88-mile-long (142-km-long) railway in northeastern Utah. The line would connect the sparsely-populated Uinta basin region to a freight rail network used to transport waxy crude oils.

The case examined the scope of the environmental impact studies required by federal agencies under the National Environmental Policy Act, a 1970 U.S. legislation enacted to prevent potential environmental harms from large projects. The law requires that agencies evaluate the "reasonably predictable" effects of any project.

Four other conservative justices joined the ruling, written by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Three liberal justices of the court filed an opinion in which they concurred with the ruling.

Kavanaugh wrote in his opinion that agencies should only take into account the environmental impacts of the project under consideration and not "effects of potential future projects, or of geographically separated projects", and that courts need to give agencies "substantial discretion" when it comes to the scope of their assessments.

"NEPA is not a substantive roadblock, but a cross-check of procedural requirements." Kavanaugh wrote that the goal of NEPA is to inform agency decisions, not paralyze them. On Dec. 10, the Supreme Court heard arguments in this case. Companies and environmental groups have been watching closely to see how the ruling could affect other infrastructure and energy projects.

The Center for Biological Diversity (one of the groups who challenged the rail) attorney Wendy Park said, "This disasterous decision will undermine our nation's environmental law, which is the bedrock of our country. Our air and water pollution will increase, climate change and extinction will worsen, and our people will have less health."

Park stated that the decision "guarantees bureaucrats will be able to bury their heads in sand, and ignore the harm federal project's will cause ecosystems and wildlife as well as the climate." Sambhav Sankar is the senior vice president for programs at Earthjustice. He predicted that Donald Trump's government would "treat this decision as an opportunity to ignore environmental concerns" as they try to promote fossil fuels and kill renewable energy, as well as destroy sensible pollution regulation.

"A Turning Point"

Keith Heaton of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition welcomed the decision. He said that it was "a turning point for the rural Utah area - providing safer, more sustainable and efficient transportation options and opening up new doors for economic stability and investment."

Companies and business groups say that environmental reviews with a broad scope can delay the regulatory process by years, putting at risk the viability of a project and future infrastructure developments.

Surface Transportation Board (which has regulatory authority for new railroad lines) issued an environmental impact report and approved the rail proposal in 2021.

The Center for Biological Diversity, along with other environmental groups, sued the state of Colorado over the approval. Eagle County also filed a lawsuit, citing that the project would double the traffic on a rail line already in place along the Colorado River and increase the train traffic within its region.

In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the environmental review did not adequately analyze the effects of increased production of oil in the basin and downstream, where it would be refined. The railway coalition was supported by the former Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration, as well as the state of Utah.

The challengers were supported by 15 other states. Colorado claimed that its economy is based on outdoor recreation and the project would increase the risk of spills, rail accidents, or leaks near the Colorado River headwaters. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch resigned from the case. Some Democratic legislators had called for his withdrawal, citing that businessman Philip Anschutz is his former client and has a financial stake in the outcome of the case.

Circuit Court in Washington, D.C. Circuit. Park stated that the Supreme Court decision did not guarantee construction of the railway.

Park stated, "The last thing that we need is a climate bomb on wheels which the communities along its proposed path say they do not want." "We have been fighting against this project for many years and will continue to fight until this rail is never built."

(source: Reuters)