Today, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado. This case presents a crucial opportunity to address the extensive and often overreaching applications of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which have significant implications for infrastructure and environmental law.
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition involves an 88-mile railroad project aimed at connecting the Uinta Basin in Utah to the national rail network. This infrastructure project would connect the people of Uinta Basin with the rest of the country, boosting the local economy through improved transportation for natural resources and agricultural products. Congress has already decided that building railroads like this one is in the public interest. And for that reason, the federal agency in charge—the Surface Transportation Board (STB)—approved construction of the railroad after publishing thousands of pages of environmental review.
NEPA, a procedural statute, requires federal agencies to consider environmental impacts prior to project approval. Despite meeting this requirement, this infrastructure project faced legal challenges from plaintiffs arguing that the STB did not sufficiently analyze supposed climate impacts, even though such an analysis is beyond the agency’s jurisdiction and expertise.
In September, the Mountain States Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief supporting the appeal on behalf of the American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) and Western Energy Alliance, arguing that the lower court misapplied NEPA, and overstepped its authority by negating Congressional intent.
“We know well that federal courts’ expansive interpretation of NEPA has created massive, unnecessary litigation over the contents of environmental impacts statements, which has unfortunately led to the obstruction of important forest health and resiliency projects throughout the West. We hope that the Supreme Court’s ruling will add much-needed clarity on this important issue beyond merely reaffirming its previous decision in Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 770 (2004),” says Sara Ghafouri, General Counsel of American Forest Resource Council.
For decades, anti-forestry groups have wielded NEPA as a weapon to delay or halt responsible forest management activities that are in the public interest. These litigants typically demand exhaustive analyses of every remote alternative and impact—not to improve agency decision-making, but to stop agency actions that would reduce wildfire risks and improve forest health.
As a result, NEPA reviews now routinely span thousands of pages and require five years or more to complete, only to be challenged in court anyway. AFRC’s briefing on these questions has focused on the fact that responsible forest management is in the public interest, and NEPA’s procedural requirements should not be a barrier to implementing important forest health and resiliency projects.
The Supreme Court’s decision to take the case underscores the national importance of resolving NEPA-related issues. A favorable ruling for the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition could set a precedent for more streamlined and predictable environmental-review processes, helping a wide range of stakeholders.